 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tejeda v. Biggs-Gridley Memorial Hospital1/30/2002
r with proof of acceptance shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment accordingly." (§ 998, subd. (b)(1).) Section 998 provides no mechanism for the resolution of disputes over the terms or binding effect of an alleged settlement, or for enforcement in general. In Saba v. Crater (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 150, at page 153, the appellate court noted the absence of an enforcement mechanism in section 998, and concluded that the section confers no authority to adjudicate disputes over the meaning and binding effect of an alleged settlement. We add that section 998 provides no authority for the court to enforce, or to retain jurisdiction to enforce, settlement agreements.
In the cases now before us, the trial court cited Saba v. Crater, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 150 and concluded that it lacked authority to resolve disputes between the parties or to enter enforcement orders. The court further concluded that it had no choice but to enter a judgment after a purported proof of acceptance was filed. In accordance with the holding in Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 899, at page 905, the court concluded that a dismissal with prejudice can qualify as a "judgment" within the meaning of section 998, and thus the court entered dismissals with prejudice.
Although a trial court has no authority to adjudicate disputes or enter enforcement orders under section 998, it does not follow that it is compelled to disregard material disputes and enter a judgment, or to enter a judgment that will not secure the benefits of settlement to the parties. A litigant's interests cannot be adversely affected without some appropriate procedural means of hearing and resolving material disputes. (See DeGroat v. Ingles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 399, 401; Mancina v. Hoar (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 796, 801; Hastings v. Matlock (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 876, 880-881.)
As this court noted in Mancina v. Hoar, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d at page 801, a procedure that would enable a trial court to enter a judgment or order against a litigant without some appropriate means for hearing and resolving material disputes would deny the litigant due process of law. Accordingly, we conclude that the absence of adjudicative or enforcement authority pursuant to section 998 means a trial court has no authority to enter a judgment in the face of material disputes as to the terms and effect of an alleged settlement or where the settlement has not been performed by the parties and performance cannot be secured.
Here, the parties disputed the validity of plaintiffs' purported acceptance of defendants' offers of compromise. An absolute and unqualified acceptance is an essential element of a binding contract. (Civ. Code, § 1585.) The trial court noted the dispute but found it was not authorized to resolve it. We conclude that, in the absence of authority to determine whether the parties entered into a valid settlement, the trial court did not have the authority to enter a judgment disposing of the action.
Moreover, defendants' offers of settlement called for an exchange of consideration. Where an agreement calls for an exchange of consideration and the language of the contract does not clearly require otherwise, then the obligations of the parties must be construed to be concurrently conditional, i.e., the obligation of performance by either party is conditioned upon performance by the other. (Rubin v. Fuchs (1969) 1 Cal.3d 50, 53-54; Katemis v. Westerlind (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 537, 546.) Before a party to a contract can be entitled to the benefit of performance by the other party, he or she must be able and offer to fulfill his or her concurrent obligations. (Civ. Code, § 1439.) However, defendants hav
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|