Gray v. Stewart

Opinion

REARDON, J. The trial court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on appellant’s complaint for personal injury. Appellant appeals the [1396]summary judgment, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that her action was barred by virtue of settlement. We affirm the judgment.

I. Facts

This personal injury action arose from a motor vehicle accident. On February 28, 2001, respondents Crystal Ann and Wayne Stewart served appellant Monika Gray with a Code of Civil Procedure1 section 998 offer to compromise for $3,750. On March 6, 2001, two days before the mandatory settlement conference, Gray served the Stewarts with an offer for $5,000. The offer did not specify the manner in which an acceptance was to be communicated. The case did not settle at the settlement conference.

On Friday, March 16, 2001, three days before the scheduled trial and after completion of an expert deposition, the Stewarts’ counsel told Gray’s attorneyf|‘we aceeptjyour 998 demand of $5,000.” Gray’s counsel concedes that the acceptance was made, was communicated in unambiguous terms, and that she heard and understood it. Nor did she attach any conditions to the acceptance or the settlement.

The attorneys agreed that the case was settled for $5,000 and shook hands on it. The Stewarts’ counsel requested the law firm’s taxpayer identification number ih, order to expedite the settlement draft process. Gray’s counsel called her office, obtained the number, and wrote it down for him. Consistent with the settlement, both counsel also discussed and agreed on how the settlement check should be made payable.

The next day, Saturday, March 17, 2001, Gray decided to revoke her offer. Over the weekend Gray’s attorney faxed a letter to the Stewarts’ counsel stating that Gray was withdrawing her offer, along with a proposed pleading. On Monday, March 19, 2001, counsel for Gray filed the withdrawal with the court.

In response to Gray’s effort to revoke the settlement offer, the Stewarts moved to amend their answer to allege the affirmative defense of settlement. The court granted the motion. Thereafter, the Stewarts moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment on grounds that Gray’s action was barred, as a matter of law, by virtue of the settlement.