Thanks for an interesting question.
I've provided information on CCP section 664.6, below. But please
bear in mind the caveat on the bottom of this page. Google Answers is
not a substitute for professional legal advice, so please take
everything here with the appropriate grains of salt.
The Santa Barbara Superior Court has some fairly extensive reference
material on 664.6. Let's start with an excerpt from the actual
language of the section itself:
http://www.sbcadre.org/cadre/rules/ccp664.htm
CCP 664.6
If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the
parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court,
for settlement of the case, or part thereof, 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.
So it's pretty straightforward. The parties in a dispute either sign
a written agreement, or present such an agreement orally in court,
then the case can be settled based on that agreement.
There is nothing in the language that explicitly states that the
agreement must be submitted to the court as part of the formal record,
but it certainly can be.
Furthermore, if an agreement is presented orally, then there would be
no written record, other than any materials prepared in the context of
the court proceedings (usually, some sort of statement or summary of
the agreement would become part of the record).
As for ensuring the performance of the agreement -- that is, that
everyone does what they agreed to do -- the court's involvement is not
automatic. They can becoming the enforcing authority if so requested
by the parties involved.
But as this article (also from the Court) makes clear:
http://www.sbcadre.org/articles/0032.htm
Pitfalls of CCP 664.6
the application of 664.6 isn't as always as clearcut as it may first
seem. In particular,
--"Parties" must sign an agreement, or be present in court to agree to
an oral agreement; that is the actual parties in the case must be
present, not just their lawyers.
--It is difficult for a single party to act as the 'agent' for other
parties in a consensus agreement, even if the parties themselves agree
to appoint such an agent.
--Parties must be well-informed about what they are agreeing to. If
later evidence suggests a party was not fully aware of what was being
consented to, then the court may decide the agreement is not binding.
Thanks for an interesting question.
I've provided information on CCP section 664.6, below. But please
bear in mind the caveat on the bottom of this page. Google Answers is
not a substitute for professional legal advice, so please take
everything here with the appropriate grains of salt.
The Santa Barbara Superior Court has some fairly extensive reference
material on 664.6. Let's start with an excerpt from the actual
language of the section itself:
http://www.sbcadre.org/cadre/rules/ccp664.htm
CCP 664.6
If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the
parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court,
for settlement of the case, or part thereof, 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.
So it's pretty straightforward. The parties in a dispute either sign
a written agreement, or present such an agreement orally in court,
then the case can be settled based on that agreement.
There is nothing in the language that explicitly states that the
agreement must be submitted to the court as part of the formal record.
Furthermore, if an agreement is presented orally, then there would be
no written record, other than any materials prepared in the context of
the court proceedings.
As for ensuring the performance of the agreement -- that is, that
everyone does what they agreed to do -- the court's involvement is not
automatic. They can becoming the enforcing authority if so requested
by the parties involved.
But as this article (also from the Court) makes clear:
http://www.sbcadre.org/articles/0032.htm
Pitfalls of CCP 664.6
the application of 664.6 isn't as always as clearcut as it may first
seem. In particular,
--"Parties" must sign an agreement, or be present in court to agree to
an oral agreement; that is the actual parties in the case must be
present, not just their lawyers.
--It is difficult for a single party to act as the 'agent' for other
parties in a consensus agreement, even if the parties themselves agree
to appoint such an agent.
--Parties must be well-informed about what they are agreeing to. If
later evidence suggests a party was not fully aware of what was being
consented to, then the court may decide the agreement is not binding.
I trust this information fully meets your needs.
However, if there's anything else I can do for you, just let me know
by posting a Request for Clarification, and I'm at your service.
All the best,
pafalafa-ga
search strategy -- Google search on [ ccp 664.4 ] |
