Howeth v. Coffelt, DCA4/1, December 8, 2017
In this case, neighbors had a disagreement about the use of a common driveway. One sued, and they eventually settled. The settlement included a stipulation for entry of judgment, but also purported to allow the parties to seed a $1,000 in court if one or the other neighbor breached the settlement. When problems erupted again, Howeth sought a $12,000 penalty by motion against Coffelt. The trial court denied the motion for lack of continuing jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Howeth appealed. Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Instead of filing a new action for breach of the settlement agreement, Howeth added to the pain by appealing. But a party can’t appeal from a non-appealable judgment. California’s Code of Civil Proc. enumerates what orders and judgments are appealable. A judgment entered based on a settlement is a consent judgment. A consent judgment is usually intended to end the matter fully and completely. Therefore, consent judgments, including related post-judgment motions, are not generally appealable.
The court noted two exceptions. For example, in class action cases where the parties settle the dispute but agree that plaintiff’s attorney will seek attorney’s fees by a motion to the trial court, the trial court’s ruling on that motion is appealable. Ruiz v. California State Automobile Association. The Ruiz court reasoned that while the judgment was a consent judgment, “the Agreement expressly contemplated further court proceedings and a separate ruling on the attorney fee and incentive payment issues,” and was there distinguishable.
Here the parties did not contemplate further proceedings or separate rulings. The case was supposed to be finished. The court could have stopped there, but went on to point out other problems with Howeth’s position.
Another reason that Howeth could not appeal the trial court’s order was that he was not seeking to enforce the judgment–which could be done by contempt proceeding–but was seeking to enforce the underlying settlement agreement, which provided by damages in the case of breach. To be appealable, a post-judgment order must affect the judgment or be related to its enforcement. The court found that the motion sought to enforce the settlement agreement not the judgment, and the order denying that request was therefore not appealable. If a post-trial motion could be used to litigate subsequent controversies, the court felt, then one party would be denied the normal due process like the ability to take discovery.
Finally, the court discussed Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 which permits a court to “retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” The court held that the application of section 664.6 is irrelevant to the issue of whether the trial court’s order is appealable. The court held that 664.6 ensures that the trial court has jurisdiction to enforce the full performance of the terms of the settlement agreement, but not to “summarily enforce the terms of a settlement agreement as applied to new disputes that arise after a final judgment is entered.” (Emphasis added.)
To protect one’s client, it is essential to think through what the judgment should say and how it can be enforced if something goes wrong. For example, if the judgment properly defines the obligations of the parties, the parties can invoke the court’s contempt power when one party violates the court’s judgment. Contempt proceedings include the power to present evidence and the court’s power to investigate. However, a contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt–a very high standard–because contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal. When contempt is found the court has the power to impose fines and imprisonment.