Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 1979 No. Civ. 47194Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement when there is substantial evidence that the parties did not reach a meeting of the minds on all material terms.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel performance of an oral settlement agreement when the parties disagreed on material terms included in the written releases.
Whether oral settlement agreements reached at judicially supervised conferences are enforceable as stipulations.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the parties did not orally agree to all of the material provisions of the settlement”

“Oral agreements to compromise and settle lawsuits reached at judicially supervised settlement conferences are enforceable”

[606]

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

Petitioners, Greyhound Lines, Inc. and James Hurson, sought to compel the performance of an oral settlement agreement made by real party in interest, Sherry Olsen, at a judicial settlement conference. After a full evidentiary hearing as approved in

Gregory

Hamilton

(1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 213 [142 Cal.Rptr. 563], the petition was denied. We granted Greyhound’s petition for an alternative writ of mandamus to review the trial court’s order.

Real party Olsen filed an action against Greyhound Lines and James Hurson for injuries sustained when a Greyhound bus collided with Hurson’s car, in which Olsen was a passenger. Settlement conferences were conducted before Judge Edward Cragen on several days in March of 1979. On the last day of these conferences, immediately prior to trial, Greyhound agreed to pay Olsen $30,500 and Hurson agreed to pay $9,000, for a total “package” settlement of $39,500. Olsen’s attorney agreed to the settlement, telephoned Olsen and obtained her acceptance of the offer, which fact was communicated to counsel and the court. A minute order was made, indicating “this cause settled this day in conference.”

Thereafter, Greyhound and Hurson sent releases and settlement drafts to Olsen’s attorney. Olsen, however, dismissed her attorney and refused to sign the releases or accept the agreed upon settlement. A new attorney was substituted. He returned the unsigned releases and drafts to petitioners’ attorney, indicating that the terms of the settlement were unacceptable, without specificity as to which terms were unacceptable.

Nearly two years later, at the time of the hearing on petitioners’ motion to compel performance of the settlement agreement, Olsen cited certain “hold harmless” provisions in the release agreement as being provisions upon which she had not agreed. It is also obvious from Olsen’s contentions made below, as well as in opposition to petitioners’ petition hére; that she had second thoughts on the amount of the settlement and considered the amount to be grossly inadequate and unfair.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

SCOTT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief