Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County, Super. Ct. No. CV048544
ELIA, J.In this appeal Patricia Perdichizzi seeks review of an order enforcing a judicially supervised settlement and dismissing an action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Appellant contends that the settlement should not have been enforced because she was ill at the settlement conference and agreed to the stipulation under duress from the commissioner and with inadequate assistance from her attorney. We find no error, however, and must therefore affirm the order.
Background
In September 2005 appellant's son, Frank Perdichizzi, filed a complaint against appellant and her husband, respondent George Margaretich II, for partition of real property and for an accounting. In January 2006 appellant filed a cross-complaint in propria persona, naming respondent and numerous other individuals, mostly members of respondent's family prior to his marriage to appellant. In her cross-complaint appellant asserted multiple causes of action related to defamation and fraud, as well as conspiracy to take respondent (who she believed was suffering from dementia) from her home. Appellant alleged that the cross-defendants had tried to brainwash and exploit respondent and "pour scorn over her integrity" by reporting her to authorities. In June 2006, now represented by counsel, appellant amended her complaint to allege fraud and infliction of emotional distress against only respondent.
This litigation was combined with marital dissolution proceedings in family court which had been initiated by respondent in April 2005. In July 2006 the parties appeared at a judicially supervised settlement hearing of both cases. The court recited the terms of the parties' agreement, which involved disposal of the parties' real and personal property and dismissal of a Sixth District appeal in the civil action (H030335).
According to the notice of appeal in that matter, respondent was appealing from the denial of a special motion to strike appellant's cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Appellant thereafter refused to acknowledge the stipulation, however. She claimed to have been ill as well as intimidated and coerced into settling. Appellant suggested that respondent's "criminal minded family members" had "tricked" him into the situation the parties faced; or, she queried, "is he part of the frauds with them." Until she knew the answer, she would not cooperate in effecting the terms of the settlement.
On February 23, 2007, the court filed an order articulating its conclusion that appellant had no basis for failing to cooperate. The court specifically found that both parties had "actively participated in the settlement negotiations for the resolution of the Family Law and Civil cases." Appellant had not mentioned any impairment, and she had asked "intelligent and well-reasoned questions." Thus, the court had "no concern as to her capacity to enter into the agreement on July 20, 200[6]."
The stipulated judgment was filed on February 21, 2007 and the civil lawsuit was ordered dismissed. Appellant was directed to complete the transfer of ownership for the two parcels she and respondent owned, in accordance with the settlement terms.
The following month the commissioner who had heard the matter recused himself at appellant's request. On March 9, 2007, respondent moved to enforce the settlement, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. At the hearing on the motion, appellant represented herself. By this time respondent had transferred his interest in the "Bierly" property so that only appellant and her son owned it. Respondent's counsel expressed the view that appellant had ratified the settlement because she was collecting rent on that property. On May 10, 2007, the court filed its order granting respondent's motion to enforce the settlement and ordered the clerk to enter a dismissal of the entire civil action.
Discussion
It is difficult to discern the gravamen of appellant's challenge on appeal. Her brief consists of 22 pages of asserted facts without reference to the location in the record where those facts could be found. With the exception of a few of the procedural events she mentions, the factual history she recounts was not established below, and most of it is not material to the issue raised by her notice of appeal. Appellant's discursive protest is thus in clear violation of the rules of appellate procedure. An opening brief must provide "a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)), and every reference to a matter in the record must be supported by a citation to the place in the record where the matter appears. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Parties representing themselves are not exempt from these rules. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) "Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.... A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) Consequently, a person appearing in propria persona "is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys." (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)
When she reaches the argument section of her brief, appellant lists more facts, again without appropriate reference to anything in the record. Moreover, she fails to present a coherent discussion of the law in relation to the facts or any reasoned explanation of the asserted error. "To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [each point in a brief must be supported by "argument and, if possible, by citation of authority"].) Assertions made without argument and appropriate reference to the record or citation of authority may be deemed waived. (City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239; Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448.)
Distilled to its essence, appellant's position is that the July 20, 2006 settlement should not be enforced for the following reasons: (1) It is important to discover who -- respondent or only his daughter, son, and ex-wife -- had committed fraud against her so that she can restore her reputation for honesty; (2) Her attorneys provided inadequate representation at the settlement conference; (3) She was legally handicapped at the settlement conference because she was suffering from Grave's Disease; (4) The commissioner knew she was ill and "forced" her to proceed with the settlement, an act of "willful misconduct" and bad faith; and (5) There is an underlying case of elder abuse toward respondent that should be heard at a trial. There are vague references to due process and extrinsic mistake, but appellant fails to explain how those concepts apply to her case.
Nowhere in this extended discourse on the unfairness of the settlement is any recognition of the standard and scope of this court's review. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 permits the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the terms of a settlement upon the motion of one party, if it determines that the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement. "A section 664.6 motion is appropriate... even when issues relating to the binding nature or terms of the settlement are in dispute, because, in ruling on the motion, the trial court is empowered to resolve these disputed issues and ultimately determine whether the parties reached a binding mutual accord as to the material terms." (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905; see also Lindsay v. Lewandowski (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1622.) "The trial court's factual findings on a motion to enforce a settlement pursuant to section 664.6 'are subject to limited appellate review and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.' " (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360, quoting Williams v. Saunders (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1162.) "Consistent with the venerable substantial evidence standard of review, and with our policy favoring settlements, we resolve all evidentiary conflicts and draw all reasonable inferences to support the trial court's finding that these parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement and its order enforcing that agreement." (Osumi v. Sutton, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1360.)
In this case the trial court considered appellant's written arguments and gave her an opportunity at the hearing to adduce evidence and to add points she had not addressed in her lengthy briefs and accompanying materials. The court's subsequent ruling in May 2007 was consistent with the findings of the commissioner on February 23 of that year: Appellant had actively and intelligently participated in the settlement proceedings with no complaint of physical impairment, nor any objective indications that she lacked capacity to enter into the agreement. Appellant therefore had no rational basis for refusing thereafter to cooperate with the terms of the settlement.
The transcript of the July 20, 2006 hearing supports the commissioner's express determination and the trial court's subsequent implied findings. Appellant contributed to the discussion regarding the property transfers and other subjects, asked pertinent questions, and affirmatively stated that she understood and agreed to the terms of the settlement. If she experienced any duress or physical impairment at this proceeding, she should have made that evident on the record. As appellant has failed to show that there was no substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion, her challenge to the enforcement of the stipulated judgment and dismissal of the civil lawsuit must fail.
Disposition
The order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent. Respondent's motion for sanctions on appeal is denied.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, Acting P. J., MIHARA, J.