Epstein v. DeDomenico
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
Joan and William Epstein (the Epsteins) appeal from a judgment enforcing a settlement reached at a court-supervised settlement conference. They contend that enforcement of the settlement was improper because their consent was obtained by coercion on the part of their attorney. In the published portion of this opinion, we find that the Epsteins waived their right to appeal by accepting the benefit of the settlement; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Facts
The appellate record is limited because this appeal arises out of a court-supervised settlement conference. However, certain…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gudelj v. GudeljCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- In Re Marriage of FonsteinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Schubert v. ReichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re Estate of HubbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Browning v. BrowningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Marriage of HassoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Lovett v. CarrascoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Steinman v. MALAMEDCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Satchmed Plaza Owners Assn. v. UWMC Hospital Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Weinstein v. RochaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.