RAYMOND CABALLERO VS. MILDRED MURRIN, ET AL

The settlement agreement at issue on this motion describes certain obligations that apply prior to Plaintiff Quarry’s death and others that are activated upon his death. As relevant to this motion, the agreement provides that within five days of Plaintiff Quarry’s death, Defendant Murrin was to execute any grant deed required to convey to Plaintiff Caballero any interest she has in the properties at 12 Oak Grove, #102 in Novato, 101 Laidley Street in San Francisco, 1220 Ellis Street #11 in San Francisco, and 119 Panoramic Drive in Novato. (Caballero Dec., Ex. A, J L(2) [““Paragraph L(2)”].) Plaintiff Quarry died on November 13, 2023. The current motion seeks an order compelling Defendant to execute certain real property deeds.

After the previous hearing in this matter, two properties remain at issue: 12 Oak Grove, #102 in Novato and 1220 Ellis Street #11 in San Francisco. The Court ordered Plaintiff Caballero to produce all evidence demonstrating Defendant Murrin has any interest in these properties. In response, Plaintiff informed the Court that “Ms. Murrin’s interest, if any, is speculative in nature. In fact it is assumed she has zero interest.” Notwithstanding this concession, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court order Defendant to present a quit claim deed to “insure clean title to the next buyer in line.”

Although the Court understands the expressed concern, there is no basis for the Court to order Defendant to comply with Plaintiffs request. There has been no showing of a material breach of the settlement agreement. Defendant has no cognizable interest in the properties and therefore has no duty to execute a grant deed. Nor does the language of the settlement agreement require Defendant to furnish a quit claim deed as a precaution to avoid future claims.

The motion to enforce the settlement is DENIED. The request for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for February, 2026 is as follows: itips: //marin-courts-ca-sov.zoomeov. conv {/1 6052672 72’ pwd=908Ch P6TVomhCA yal lnzo6lyzzd hawt Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935

Ifyou are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https:/Avww.marin.courts.ca.gov