Hanson v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Feb 22, 2022 No. B314545Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a fully executed settlement agreement is a binding contract that cannot be unilaterally rescinded by a party, and that the agreement's unambiguous terms regarding the provision of W-9 forms must be enforced.

Issues

Whether a party may unilaterally withdraw acceptance of a settlement agreement after it has been fully executed.
Whether the settlement agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of a meeting of the minds regarding the requirement to provide a W-9 form.
Whether the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is basic contract law that, once a valid unconditional contract is entered into, the parties are bound by their agreement and one party cannot unilaterally revoke or rescind it.”

“Once the parties executed the agreement, Hanson was bound by its terms.”

“The terms of this contract are not ambiguous. They expressly condition payment upon the provision of W-9 forms from both [Hanson] and her counsel.”

Filed 2/22/22 Hanson v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

IRENE HANSON, B314545 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 20STCV32556) WELLS FARGO BANK,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry A. Green, Judge. Affirmed. Peter Borenstein for Plaintiff and Appellant. Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton and Kerry W. Franich for Defendant and Respondent. _______________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Irene Hanson appeals from the trial court’s order granting the motion of defendant and respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. 1 Hanson principally contends the settlement agreement is unenforceable because she withdrew her acceptance before an agreement was formed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hanson filed a complaint against Wells Fargo alleging it failed to comply with a bank levy relating to a judgment Hanson previously obtained. After Wells Fargo answered the complaint, its counsel offered to settle the case for $900. Hanson’s counsel accepted the offer and requested a draft settlement agreement. Wells Fargo provided the requested draft, and Hanson’s counsel sent back a copy of the agreement executed by Hanson. Wells Fargo signed the agreement one week later. Paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement provides, in relevant part: “Wells Fargo shall pay to [Hanson] the one-time total sum of nine hundred dollars ($900.00) (the “Settlement Payment”). The Settlement Payment shall be made by check made payable to “Irene Hanson” and be sent via overnight mail to [Hanson]’s counsel . . . within thirty (30) days after receipt of an executed copy of this Agreement and a valid, fully-executed and dated IRS W 9 Form (revised Oct. 2018) from both [Hanson] and [Hanson]’s counsel. Paragraph 3 states: “In consideration of the

Hanson v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

WILLHITE, J.

AI Brief