Enforceability of Settlement Terms in California Courts

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

California’s public policy has long been to encourage settlement over litigation in the interests of efficiency and economy for the courts and for the parties involved. See, e.g., Kaufman v. Goldman, 195 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745 (2011); Osumi v. Sutton, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1355, 1359 (2007); Zhou v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 1471, 1475 (2007); Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 155 Cal. App. 2d 679, 696 (1957). This February, however, in Purcell v. Schweitzer, 224 Cal. App. 4th 969 (2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal declined to enforce a liquidated damages provision in a settlement agreement on the basis that the damages were actually a penalty provision unrelated to actual damages arising from the breach of the settlement agreement. This decision raises the prospect that the terms of carefully negotiated and crafted settlement agreements will themselves be subject to litigation and potential invalidation by California courts.

The dispute in Purcell involved a settlement of a suit arising from Schweitzer’s default on a $85,000 promissory note to Purcell. The settlement agreement stated that Schweitzer would pay Purcell $38,000 plus interest over 24 months, with a $20,000 initial payment followed by installment payments due on the first day of each month. The stipulation central to this case stated that if any payment was not made by the fifth day of the month, it would be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, and a judgment for the original liability of $85,000 could be entered against Schweitzer. The settlement agreement stated that this provision was “neither a penalty nor . . . a forfeiture,” and explained that the $85,000 took into account, inter alia, limiting future attorney’s fees, “elimination of uncertainties relating to collection of a Judgment in contrast to a full, voluntary payment and performance by Defendant,” and “the public policy of judicial economy.” The agreement further included a provision waiving Schweitzer’s right to appeal or otherwise contest a default judgment.

After 18 months of timely payments, Schweitzer was six days late on a single payment. Accordingly, Purcell sought and obtained a default judgment for $58,829.35. Purcell also accepted Schweitzer’s late payment and his subsequent monthly payments until the entire amount due under the settlement agreement was paid.

Schweitzer brought a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the liquidated damages provision of the settlement agreement was an unenforceable penalty for breach. The trial court agreed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the stipulation allowing for default judgment “an unenforceable penalty” because, at nearly $60,000, it could have no reasonable relation to actual damages Purcell would suffer from a single late installment payment of about $750.

The court, relying on Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Execute Sports, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 495 (2008), held that the test for whether stipulated damages constitute an unenforceable penalty or an enforceable liquidated damages provision centers on whether the damages were a reasonable anticipation of harm caused by breach of the settlement agreement, not of the underlying loan contract. The facts of Greentree were similar; there, the underlying default was $45,000, and the settlement was for $20,000 in two installments with a judgment for the full $45,000 plus interest in the case of default. The key difference, however, was that the settlement agreement in Greentree did not include any provision attempting to clarify that the default judgment was not a penalty. Although the Purcell settlement agreement included such clarification, the court held that the language denying the stipulation was a “penalty” had no import because “public policy may not be circumvented by words used in a contract”—thereby foreclosing the possibility that a more carefully drafted provision might have been enforced.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s analysis focused on California policy disallowing penalty provisions in contracts, ignoring the countervailing policy of encouraging settlement. See e.g., Kaufman, 195 Cal. App. 4th at 745 (recognizing the “strong public policy favoring settling of disputes”). Though settlements are evaluated under the same legal standards as other contracts, there are several reasons why settlement agreements might deserve broader deference than contracts generally merit.

First, settlement agreements are usually entered into with the considered advice of attorneys on both sides, and are presumably highly negotiated; this diminishes concerns a court might otherwise have about, for example, contracts of adhesion or imbalances in information or bargaining power. The Purcell case is a particularly clear example of the foregoing, as the settlement agreement expressly sought to show that the agreed-upon amount was reasonably connected to the anticipated harm to Purcell by stating that neither party considered it a penalty and by explaining that the $85,000 amount took into account “the economics associated with proceeding further with this matter.” It is likely that, in deciding to settle with a party who had already proven himself to be unreliable in making payments, Purcell relied on the inclusion of a strong incentive for Schweitzer to make his settlement payments.

Second, negotiations over settlement agreements occur in the shadow of an already extant dispute, with the increased knowledge that brings of damages and litigation costs, adding to both parties’ negotiating capability.

Third, a primary attraction of settlement is often the ability to avoid litigation costs. The risk of being required to litigate over the terms of a settlement agreement could greatly diminish this benefit, thereby significantly working against California’s policy to encourage settlement over litigation.

Though the facts make Schweitzer’s case sympathetic—he was liable for an extra $58,000, despite being only six days late on one payment and having paid the entire liability by the time of the default judgment—it is easy to imagine a more borderline fact pattern where, in the absence of a substantial liquidated damages provision, a party would fail to make many or most of its payments on time. Additionally, the inability to enforce such damages provisions in settlement agreements may make parties in Purcell’s position less likely to settle, thereby making it much harder for parties that have defaulted on a loan to obtain a settlement allowing for installment payments with a discount from the original liability.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.