Estate of Dipinto

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1986 No. B017983Published

Before: McCLOSKY

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, as substantial evidence supported the finding that the parties had entered into a valid and binding oral agreement.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 authorizes the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement orally stipulated to “before the court” if it determines that the parties have entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement.”

“The proper standard of review of the court’s exercise of discretion in granting the motion is whether the court’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence.”

Opinion

McCLOSKY, J.

Appellants John A. Dipinto and Dipinto Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Dipinto Company) appeal from the “Order Accepting Stipu

[627]

lation of Parties and Determining Title to Property in Favor of the Estate and Withdrawing Objections Thereto” filed November 20,1985, and the “Ex Parte Order Re Execution Of Documents By The County Clerk” filed November 25, 1985. The order “[a]djudicating the merits of [the] claim under [Probate Code] Section 851.5” constitutes a judgment and is appeal-able. (Prob. Code, § 1240, subd. (i).) Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement.

Respondent was appointed administrator with will annexed to the estate of America Dipinto, following her death. Respondent filed a “Petition For Order Directing Conveyance And For Damages” on behalf of the estate. The petition alleged that assets of the estate had been concealed and misappropriated by Joanna Delgado, Josephine Cockman, and John Dipinto, and that the assets had been diverted into the personal bank accounts and real estate holdings of those parties and into Dipinto Company, a corporation of which John Dipinto and Ms. Cockman were directors, and of which they were president and bookkeeper respectively. Appellants opposed the petition.

At the mandatory settlement conference held September 4, 1985, respondent and beneficiaries Renaldo Dipinto, Josephine Cockman, Joanna Delgado and John Dipinto entered into a settlement agreement and their counsel concurred in that agreement. Although beneficiary Philip Dipinto was not present, he agreed through counsel to accept the settlement agreement. In open court the trial judge inquired of John Dipinto, who was represented by counsel, as follows:

“The Court: Did you understand everything that your lawyer Mr. Antablin was saying with respect to the settlement?

“Mr. John Dipinto: Yes, Your Honor.

“The Court: Did you also understand everything Mr. Oldman [attorney for John Mills] was saying with respect to the settlement?

“Mr. John Dipinto: Yes, with one question, Your Honor. I have a check coming, which I discussed with Mr. Oldman, due any day for $3,000.1 want that check, and anything previous on from today he gets.

Estate of Dipinto

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief