Timney v. Lin
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEVENS, Acting P. J.
In the published portions of this opinion, we hold that an illegal forfeiture provision is unenforceable, even if the illegal provision is included in a settlement agreement.
This is an appeal from a ruling by the trial court on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Appellants Susan Timney and Lynda Kretlow contend the forfeiture of their deposit of $31,250 on a proposed real property sale, in accordance with a provision in the settlement agreement, constituted an illegal forfeiture. We agree and reverse.
I. Facts and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Weddington Productions, Inc. v. FlickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Assn.California Supreme Court · 1998
- California State Automobile Ass'n. Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Lesnik v. Eisenmann SEDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Kashani v. TSANN KUEN CHINA ENTERPRISE CO.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Kaufman v. GoldmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Silicon Image, Inc. v. Genesis Microchip, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2003
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.