Daniels v. Ramirez

Filed 8/22/06 Daniels v. Ramirez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dan Thomas Oki, Judge. Dismissed.

________

Law Office of Jeanne Collachia and Jeanne Collachia for Plaintiffs and Appellants Willie L. Daniels and Emma L. Daniels

Albert W. Ramirez for Defendant and Respondent.

_________

We dismiss as moot the appeal from a judgment entered under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, the benefits of which the plaintiffs and appellants accepted without posting the necessary undertaking to stay the judgment.^[1]

BACKGROUND

The parties to the settlement agreement are plaintiffs and appellants Willie and Emma Daniels (jointly referred to as Daniels) and defendant and respondent Patricia Ramirez.

In November 1994, Daniels obtained a $250,000 bail bond on behalf of Daniels' son Shelton from Pete Brito Bail Bonds (the Company). Daniels paid the annual $25,015 bail bond premium but did not pay the $25,015 renewal premium that came due in November 1995. In any event, the Company did not exercise its contractual right to exonerate the bond for nonpayment of the renewal premium and allowed Shelton to remain free on bail until he was convicted on May 20, 1996.

After the bond was exonerated on May 20, 1996, the Company reconveyed three of four deeds of trust securing a promissory note that Daniels had provided as collateral for the bond. The Company did not return the promissory note nor did it cancel or reconvey the fourth deed of trust (the Canterbury deed of trust).

At some point, defendant Ramirez, the owner of Albert Ramirez Bail Bonds which was the trustee of the Canterbury deed of trust, acquired the Company after the death of its former owner. In September 2002, Ramirez, acting through Albert Ramirez Bail Bonds, sent Daniels a notice threatening to foreclose against Daniels' property (the identity of which was not specified in the notice) for nonpayment of the $25,015 renewal premium for Shelton's bail bond. Daniels refused to pay the renewal premium, contending that the Company's prior owner had orally waived the renewal premium in November 1995.

Daniels filed the present lawsuit against Ramirez in January 2004, seeking to prevent the threatened foreclosure and to clear title to both the Canterbury and the Laurel properties. Apparently, both Daniels and Ramirez did not realize that the Laurel trust deed was among the three trust deeds that were reconveyed after the bond was exonerated. The first amended complaint alleged, as to both the Canterbury and Laurel properties, claims for quiet title, slander of title, cancellation and reconveyance of deeds of trust, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Similarly, Ramirez' verified answer erroneously assumed that both the Laurel and Canterbury deeds of trust had not been reconveyed to Daniels.

Following an October 2004 mediation hearing at which the parties continued to assume that both the Laurel and Canterbury trust deeds were at issue, the parties and their respective attorneys signed a settlement agreement under which: (1) Daniels was to pay Ramirez $4,500 (plus the recording fees) for the reconveyance of the Canterbury and Laurel trust deeds, (2) the parties were to sign mutual releases admitting no impropriety, liability, or wrongdoing, (3) Ramirez was to accept $4,500 as payment in full of any known or unknown claims, (4) each party was to bear its own costs and attorney fees, and (5) the settlement agreement was subject to enforcement under section 664.6.

Thereafter, Daniels discovered that the Laurel trust deed previously had been reconveyed by the Company. When Ramirez moved to enforce the settlement agreement under section 664.6, Daniels sought to rescind the agreement based on the parties' mistaken belief that the Laurel trust deed had not been reconveyed. Daniels argued that this mistake was material to the settlement agreement because Daniels had agreed to pay $4,500 for the reconveyance of two trust deeds based on the combined equities in both properties. Ramirez, on the other hand, argued that the mistake was immaterial to the settlement agreement because Daniels, who owed a $25,015 renewal premium plus interest, had ample incentive to pay the much lesser sum of $4,500 to protect the equity in the Canterbury property. Ramirez also argued that â€