The Case Held That Judgment Creditor’s Release Of Judgment Debtor Does Not Preclude Creditor’s Attorney From Pursuing Contingency Fee And Costs From Judgment Debtor.
We posted about Mancini & Associates v. Jason Schwetz, B290498 (2nd Dist. Div. 6) (Gilbert, J.) on September 5, 2019. This is an unusual case in which the judgment creditor, Gina Rodriguez, and her former employer and judgment debtor, Jason Schwetz, buried the hatchet, and entered into a settlement agreement and release, without consideration. The trial judge thought something was amiss and said so. The Court of Appeal evidently thought the trial judge’s observations were noteworthy, and quoted the judge: “In ruling, the trial judge commented, ‘Something about this [factual situation] doesn’t seem right. It’s inconsistent. Sometimes I see this happen, this sort of resolution when there is evidence of a kind of romantic relationship that’s been rekindled . . . .’” We also thought this was worth quoting in our earlier post, because perhaps it explained why the judgment creditor released her debtor. On September 30, 2019, the Court of Appeal had second thoughts, modifying its opinion to remove the trial judge’s comments.
We surmise that the Court of Appeal recognized that the comments were in the realm of the speculative, unnecessary to its holding, and better left unsaid.
This post, Settlement Agreements: On Second Thought, Trial Judge's Speculation About Rekindled Romantic Relationship Is Removed From Modified Appellate Opinion, by first appeared on at http://www.calmediation.org/.