This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 01:38:34 (UTC).


Case Summary

On 02/26/2016 MARINA ABRICA LOPEZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ALICIA LOPEZ MORA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California


Party Details








Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney


Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.


Docket Entries

  • 07/21/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F49; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Case Dismissed) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by ALICIA LOPEZ MORA (Defendant); MARIA CARMEN MORA (Defendant); MARC SCHWARTZ (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC056910    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 8

Date: 8-10-20 c/f 4-23-20

Case # PC056910

Trial Date: N/A


MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Alicia Lopez Mora

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff Marina Abrica Lopez


Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) requests an order enforcing the settlement between the parties, entering judgment thereon, and allowing Plaintiff to execute on the judgment.


On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff Marina Abrica Lopez filed a complaint for Quiet Title, Partition, Accounting and Equitable Lien.

On July 21, 2016, the court dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the subject motion to enforce settlement, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. The motion is unopposed.

RULING: Denied without Prejudice.

No agreement was submitted to the court for entry of the agreement and dismissal, but the court granted the dismissal subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Accordingly, “parties” under section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, not their attorneys. (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 (holding “we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record.”).) Additionally, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)

In support of the instant motion, Moving Defendant submitted her declaration containing a copy of the settlement agreement. The agreement provides in relevant part that the parties shall list the subject property for sale no later than August 1, 2016, with Plaintiff entitled to a 25% share of any and all sale proceeds. If the sale of the property fails to yield $125,000 in proceeds to Plaintiff, Defendants agreed to execute a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the property to make up any difference. The promissory note was due and payable within six months of execution. [Lopez Mora Decl., Ex. 1.] On 6-23-16, the parties executed the $125,000 note. [Id., Ex. 2.] The Deed of Trust was recorded on July 13, 2016. [Id., Ex. 3.]

Defendant moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to either accept the settlement funds and reconvey the deed of trust secured on the property, or the court expunge and/or reconvey the deed of trust. The motion lacks sufficient legal and factual argument in support of any enforcement.

Although the settlement agreement required a property sale, it’s not clear when and whether the property was listed for sale. According to Lopez Mara, an escrow account was opened for the purpose of paying off Plaintiff, but closed due to the failure of Plaintiff to provide a payoff figure. Lopez Mara also maintains that an appraisal done on April 10, 2018—almost two years after the settlement agreement term requiring the listing no later than August 10, 2016—shows a value of $449,800. Lopez Mara maintains this appraised value would only entitle Plaintiff to $95,000 from the proceeds. [Id., Ex. 4.]

Assuming no sale occurred, the motion lacks any explanation of how the $95,000 share of the appraised value of the property satisfies the requirements of the settlement agreement in regards to the language regarding the $125,000 promissory note and deed of trust. There is no evidence of any agreement accepting a revised lower amount.

Even if Defendant presented evidence of a revised amount and satisfaction of the agreement met with a $95,000 payment rather than the $125,000 indicated in the settlement agreement, Plaintiff provides no basis of authority compelling Plaintiff to comply with the agreement. The court can only issue an order regarding the settlement agreement, but Defendant otherwise provides no authority or request for entry of any judgment.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.


Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOULGOURJIAN RAFFY MIKAELIAN