Schneidereit v. Rabobank
Jeff and Adele Schneidereit appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted respondent Rabobank, N.A.'s motion to enforce a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.[1] Substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the settlement placed on the record by respondent's counsel at the January 11, 2011 hearing was based on the forbearance-workout agreement drafted by respondent, not the version drafted by appellants. Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's factual findings that appellants understood this at the hearing, accepted the agreement drafted by respondent with the modifications placed on the record by respondent's counsel, and knowingly and voluntarily agreed to dismiss their complaint at that time. Nevertheless, the record is clear that appellants dismissed their complaint before a written settlement agreement was executed, and that the parties did not request the trial court retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing their settlement. As a consequence, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear respondents' section 664.6 motion. We are compelled to reverse.
Comments on Schneidereit v. Rabobank