HOLDINGS: [1]-Agreement to a binding settlement under Civ. Code, §§ 1550, 1585, was conclusively established by emails and voicemails repeatedly expressing acceptance and intent to be bound, thus forming a valid agreement even though the parties intended a formal written agreement; [2]-The material terms of the offer, which included the settlement amount, payment deadline, and release of claims, were made certain under Civ. Code, § 3390, subd. (e), by unambiguously stating them; [3]-Although the underlying dispute involved a company that owned real property, the statute of frauds in Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(3), was inapplicable because the agreement was not for the sale of the property; [4]-Sanctions for a frivolous appeal were warranted under Code Civ. Proc., § 907, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276, because arguments against the validity of the settlement were plainly meritless.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are Orange County business attorneys


Judgment and order affirmed.

Back To Top