2014-00164059-CU-OR
Tony Singh vs. Reshna Kaur
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement
Filed By: Siguenza, Joseph J.
Defendants Reshna Kaur, Anjula Devi, Ranjit Nagra, and Ashveer Nagra (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to enforce settlement agreement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is
DENIED.
This action arises from an oral real estate transaction. In or about November 2005, Defendants purchased real property located at 320 Stone Valley Circle, Sacramento, California 95823. In 2010, Nagra was no longer able to make the mortgage payments and the property was in foreclosure proceedings. The property was listed for short sale and was purchased by plaintiffs Tony Singh and Jajur Singh for $150,000. Title was taken in the name of plaintiff, Diljit Kaur, on September 10, 2010.
A Note was executed on September 8, 2010, in which Reshna Kaur, Nagra’s daughter, agreed to repay the $150,000 in monthly installments of $1,000 for a period of two years, and then any unpaid principal would be due in full on January 10, 2012. The purported agreement was that once the $150,000 was paid, title would revert to Defendants.
Kaur made payments through December 2012, when there was a principal balance due of $108,000, but failed to pay the principal balance. Nagra attempted to obtain financing to pay the $108,000 principal balance, but was unable to do so.
On October 11, 2013, Diljit Kaur encumbered the property with a Deed of Trust in the amount of $176,000. Russell D. Harris is beneficiary of the $176,000 Note.
On March 4, 2014, Diljit Kaur executed a Quit Claim Deed transferring the property to Ashveer Singh, son of defendants Nagra and Devi. Attempts were purportedly made to secure financing for Ashveer Singh to pay off the $108,000 balance, but such attempts were unsuccessful.
Plaintiffs Tony Singh, Jajur Singh, and Diljit Kaur filed their complaint on May 28, 2014, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, quiet title, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunction and fraud. The named defendants are Reshna Kaur, Anjula Devi, Ranjit Nagra, and Ashveer Nagra. On June 30, 2014, a general denial was filed by Reshna Kaur, Anjula Devi, Ranjit Nagra, and Ashveera Nagra. The parties attended a settlement conference on January 27, 2016.
Prior to the settlement conference, Plaintiffs had a conversation with Mr. Harris, beneficiary of the $176,000 Note on the subject property. One of the issues discussed was providing a “$0” demand in exchange for Plaintiffs providing Harris with another property to substitute in as collateral. (Singh Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiffs contend they “entered into the settlement conference with the assurance that if settlement discussions went in that particular direction they could represent to the Defendants, the settlement conference mediator and the court that Harris would provide a $0 demand.” (Singh Decl. ¶3.)
At the settlement conference, the parties reached a settlement and one of the several various terms was that Plaintiffs would provide a “$0 demand” when requested. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs agreed to “provide [the] escrow company with $0 demand regarding the $176,000 deed of trust. If a $0 demand is not sufficient for the lender then Plaintiffs shall furnish any and all necessary documentation, in a timely manner, to close escrow. If a lender requires the Deed of Trust to be released in order to close escrow, Plaintiffs will release the Deed of Trust and escrow will be extended an additional 30 days for a total of 90 days escrow period.” (ROA 33 [“Stipulation for Settlement Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6; Order].)
Defendants contend Plaintiffs have failed to comply with these particular obligations under the settlement agreement and now move to enforce the terms of the settlement. Although Defendants failed to provide any evidence whatsoever indicating Plaintiffs have failed to comply with their obligations under the settlement, in opposition, Plaintiffs concede that they have not complied.
First, it is unclear why Defendants have waited three years to enforce the settlement agreement. Regardless, in opposition Plaintiffs contend they have tried to comply, but they cannot force a third party (Mr. Harris) to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement [or litigation] in which he did not participate. Plaintiffs contend after the settlement conference, Mr. Harris changed his mind and decided not to follow through with his assurance. (Singh Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs contend they have had many conversations with Mr. Harris and met with him to seek alternatives in order to provide Defendants with the $0 demand as agreed upon. Plaintiffs have offered Mr. Harris several properties to use in place of the subject property, including their own residence. However, Plaintiffs contend they have been unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Harris and they cannot force him to cooperate. (Singh Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.)
Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate in writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court…, for settlement of the case,…the court,
upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” (CCP § 664.6 (emphasis added).) The Court’s role on this motion is to enforce the settlement agreement as written, not to rewrite the settlement agreement. Indeed, the Court cannot rewrite the settlement agreement, but can only determine based on the evidence submitted the terms of the settlement agreement and whether those terms have been complied with by both parties. On a 664.6 motion the “trial court merely resolve[s] questions about the settlement.” (Malouf Bros. v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284.) The procedure under section 664.6 is a summary procedure to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement. It is well established that a settlement agreement is a contract and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. The interpretation of a written instrument is a judicial function which is exercised according to general canons of interpretation so that the purposes of the instrument are to be given effect. (Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [“The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. Civil Code sec. 1636. All material terms of the settlement are set forth in the agreement, and it is clear from its terms that it was intended to be a final agreement.”].)
A contract must receive such interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties. (Civil Code section 1643.) “An interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void. (Civil Code section 3541.)
The terms of the settlement were that Plaintiffs would provide a $0 demand regarding the $176,000 Deed of Trust. The only person who could do this would be Mr. Harris; yet, he is not a party to the action and this court cannot compel him to do something he did not contractually agree to do. Moreover, just how that $0 demand was to be obtained was not specified. However, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that their intention in agreeing to the settlement was to provide Mr. Harris with an alternative property as collateral and, in exchange, he would provide the $0 demand. When Mr. Harris changed his mind after the settlement conference, this completely altered the meeting of the minds that was reached between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Accordingly, the Court cannot enforce the terms of the settlement agreement without violating the intention of Plaintiffs.
Based on the foregoing, the motion to enforce settlement is DENIED. In doing so, the Court observes section 664.6 is not the exclusive procedure for enforcing settlement agreements. They may also be enforced “by motion for summary judgment, by a separate suit in equity, or by amendment of the pleadings to raise the settlement as an affirmative defense.” (Nicholson v. Barab (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1671, 1681.)
Plaintiffs’ alternative request to return the case to trial setting is GRANTED.
This case is referred back to the Trial Setting Process for selection of new Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court’s website at
agreed on dates by the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.
Defendants have indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs immediately.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants are ordered to notify Plaintiffs immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Plaintiffs appear without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Link to this page