I'm totally on board for Justice Richman's opinion here, which affirms the trial court's decision to enforce an $100,000 -- including all attorney's fees -- settlement of a Lemon Law case. The trial court held that those were the terms to which the parties agreed at the settlement conference, even though plaintiff says the settlement was $100,000 plus fees.
That said, were I the trial court, and I had to guess, I suspect that what really happened was that defendant offered $100,000 total, plaintiff (and her lawyers) thought it was $100,000 plus fees, and the parties then "agreed" to that deal -- each thinking different things. The best evidence of that fact is that the defendant had essentially already admitted liability and previously made a CCP 998 offer of $70,000 plus fees, and the amount of fees had surely substantially increased (potentially by churning) since then. So an offer of $100,000 all-in wouldn't have made sense.
But the standard of review on appeal is dispositive here. The trial court could well have gone the other way. But there was substantial evidence for the factual position it took, so that's the end of the story.
Lesson for the day: Be super careful when to listen to the settlement terms recited on the record by the judge at your settlement conference. Super.
