Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Reyes died intestate in January 2015, survived by his wife Marina and at least two children from a prior marriage, Michael and Rebecca. Marina was appointed administrator and in September 2017 filed an account and petition for final distribution, requesting a probate homestead set-aside on the estate's Sacramento dwelling and proposing a one-third/two-thirds division. Michael and Rebecca objected, challenging the homestead and the claimed parent-child relationship between Jesus and four additional children listed in the petition.
During a May 2018 bench trial before Judge Steven M. Gevercer, the parties announced a settlement: Marina would pay Michael and Rebecca $32,500 each for waiver of their objections. The probate court placed Michael and Rebecca under oath and confirmed their consent, but conducted no similar colloquy with Marina. Rebecca later signed a written agreement with additional terms; Michael and Marina did not sign. The probate court enforced the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and on the first appeal this court reversed, holding there was no enforceable settlement because Marina never orally consented, Michael and Marina never signed the writing, and the writing exceeded the oral terms (Reyes v. Reyes (Aug. 20, 2021, C089180) [nonpub. opn.]).
After the remittitur issued in October 2021, Marina sought a case management conference to reset the matter for trial. At the December 7, 2023 conference before Judge John P. Winn, held without a court reporter, Marina's counsel read the May 2018 settlement terms verbatim to her through a Spanish interpreter, and the probate court found a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary settlement and entered an order approving it. Michael and Rebecca appealed again.
The Court’s Holding
The court confirmed the order was appealable because, like the prior enforcement order, it finally determined the parties' rights regarding settlement, leaving nothing for the probate court to do but enforce it. Although Michael and Rebecca did not object below to the voir dire procedure, the court exercised its discretion to reach the merits because the dispositive contentions presented pure questions of law on undisputed facts.
On the merits, the court held the probate court did not violate a specific remand direction or the law of the case, because the prior reversal was unqualified and did not address whether the settlement's defects could be cured. But the probate court was not authorized to approve settlement at the case management conference: under Probate Code sections 1042 and 1046, contested probate matters must be heard on notice with competent evidence, and a case management conference is meant to expedite proceedings, not end the case. Michael and Rebecca had notice only of a conference, not that Marina would be voir-dired or that settlement would be approved; that shortcut effectively adjudicated the contested issues, requiring reversal, so the court did not reach the due process claim.
For guidance on remand, the court agreed that Michael and Rebecca's May 2018 oral consent did not constitute an open offer to settle. Under Civil Code section 1587, a proposal is revoked by the lapse of a reasonable time without acceptance, and more than five years is unreasonable as a matter of law; moreover, they had unambiguously repudiated their consent, so the record contains no open offer. On remand, the probate court must hold a noticed hearing on the contested issues, though it may order a mandatory settlement conference under rule 3.1380, and any settlement must comply with applicable law rather than ratify the prior unenforceable agreement.
Key Takeaways
- An order approving a settlement that finally determines the parties' rights is appealable, even when entered after a case management conference.
- A probate court may not use a case management conference to approve a settlement and end a contested case; Probate Code sections 1042 and 1046 require a noticed hearing with competent evidence, and the objectors had no notice the conference could produce that result.
- An appellate court may reach forfeited contentions presenting pure questions of law on undisputed facts, as here despite the absence of any objection to the voir dire procedure below.
- Oral consent to settlement terms is an offer that lapses after a reasonable time; more than five years is unreasonable as a matter of law under Civil Code section 1587, especially after repudiation.
- An unqualified reversal without specific remand directions does not bar action on remand, but the court may not simply ratify a prior unenforceable settlement.
Why It Matters
The decision extends Dunlap v. Mayer (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 419 to settlement approvals, reinforcing that case management conferences expedite litigation rather than dispose of contested probate matters without notice.
It also confirms that oral consent to settlement terms is a revocable offer expiring after a reasonable time, so a court cannot resurrect a years-old unenforceable agreement by obtaining the missing party's consent long after the deal collapsed; on remand, the contested issues must be resolved through a noticed hearing or a compliant new settlement.