Skip to main content

California Court of Appeal

Chan v. Lund, H034196

Trial court's grant of defendants' motions to enforce a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure 664.6, arising from a homeowner's suit against the defendants, for cutting a number of trees on plaintiff's property adjacent to a fence separating his property and the property of defendants, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's contentions that the court should not have enforced the settlement because his execution of the settlement memorandum was obtained through extortion or because defendants' motions to enforce constituted violations of section 496(a) of the Penal Code is rejected; 2) plaintiff's contentions that as a result of his attorney's conduct, the settlement agreement was subject to rescission under various legal theories including economic duress, undue influence, and fraud, are without merit as plaintiff has failed to cite to specific portions of the appellate record in support of these assertions; and 3) because there is no specific order or ruling in which the trial court held that plaintiff was barred from introducing evidence to oppose enforcement of the settlement, plaintiff's constitutional argument need not be addressed.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 09/29/2010
  • Published 09/29/2010


  • Duffy


  • California Court of Appeal


Copied to clipboard