Miller v. Miller
This appeal arises from a dispute between siblings Robin G. Miller and Kori Miller over the terms of a trust.[1] On the first day of a trial that was to determine whether certain purported amendments to the trust were valid, the parties settled, orally stating the terms on the record. Kori later claimed the settlement was invalid, but the court enforced the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.[2] Kori appeals from that order. Kori’s brother Robin has moved to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: (1) Under the “disentitlement doctrine,†Kori’s violation of a court order should preclude her from seeking the assistance of this court; and (2) Kori’s acceptance of the benefit of a portion of the judgment waived her right to appeal. For the reasons expressed below, we deny the motion to dismiss.
On the merits of the appeal, Kori argues (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because the parties did not request the court to retain jurisdiction, (2) the settlement was unenforceable because the parties did not express their assent to the settlement in the same manner — Kori consented orally in open court and Robin later consented in writing outside of court, (3) a condition precedent to the settlement agreement was that it be reduced to writing on the same day, and it was not, and (4) the oral settlement agreement omits material terms. We reject each of these arguments. The court retained jurisdiction, despite the absence of an express request by the parties, because a final judgment had not yet been entered at the time the agreement was enforced. Section 664.6 does not require each party to express their assent in the same manner. It is enough if each party expresses their consent in a manner specified by the statute; i.e., orally on the record or in writing outside of court. Kori waived the asserted condition precedent to the effectiveness of the agreement. And finally, the contention that the oral settlement omitted material terms lacks record support. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on Miller v. Miller