Tentative Ruling: Estate of Dennis Mark Lang
Case Number
24PR00606
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/09/2026 - 08:30
Nature of Proceedings
Motion to Enforce Settlement (CCP 664.5)
Tentative Ruling
Probate Notes:
Appearances required.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Evidentiary Hearing. A Petition for Letters of Administration was filed by Heather Ailis Lang on October 21, 2024. Although that petition did not receive objection, a competing Petition for Probate of Will and Letters of Administration was filed by Eddie Overton on November 7, 2024. That petition also did not receive written objection, but by virtue of its filing created a contest over the appointment of a personal representative for the Decedent’s estate. That contest required Evidentiary Hearing to resolve (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377), which appears from the record to have been held on August 27, 2025. However, due to a Notice of Settlement filed on August 26, 2025, it does not appear any evidence was presented.
Instead, the terms of the settlement agreement were read into the record at the August 27th hearing as follows:
The Petition for Probate of Will and for Letters of Administration with Will Annexed filed by Eddie Overton on 11/07/2024 shall be dismissed with prejudice. A settlement payment of $82,500.00 shall be paid to Eddie Overton directly to her at the close of escrow for the property located at 631 San Miguelito Road, Lompoc, CA 93436.
Heather Ailis Lang shall act as Administrator of the Estate of Dennis Mark Lang, without bond. Eddie Overton shall have the right to remain in the property located at 631 San Miguelito Road, Lompoc, CA 93436, for no less and no more than sixty (60) days from the date that Letters of Administration are issued. The balance of the estate after all costs of administration shall be distributed pursuant to Probate Code section 6402(a).
(Min. Ord., filed Aug. 27, 2025.)
The August 27th minute order also indicated that a settlement agreement would be circulated among the parties, and once signed, be submitted to the court for approval. The Court issued an Order for Probate (DE-140) on November 6, 2025, finding Decedent died intestate, and appointing Heather Ailis Lang the administrator with full IAEA authority. Letters were thereafter issued to Ms. Lang on November 7, 2026, and no objections to these orders have been made.
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On January 22, 2026, Eddie Overton filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the previously mentioned Notice of Settlement.
In that motion, Mr. Overton alleges an unnamed “Respondent” refuses to sign the settlement agreement being circulated and has “intimated an intent to pursue claims that would undermine the settlement and materially prejudice Movant.” (Mot. at ¶4.) Mr. Overton argues the court has authority pursuant to Probate Code section 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement that was read into the record on August 27, 2025.
There is no opposition to the motion on file.
ANALYSIS
California Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6 “permits a court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement if the parties stipulate orally before the court or in writing to settle all or part of a case. (Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 889.) “A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. Section 664.6's express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.” (Id. at 889.)
In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1533.) In deciding whether to enforce a settlement, courts have the power to decide disputed facts, and to interpret the agreement. (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566.) In deciding a motion pursuant to Section 664.6, judges may receive evidence, determine disputed facts including the terms the parties previously agreed upon, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment, but may not newly create material terms. (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1360.)
When, as in this case, a party or parties have failed to execute a subsequent written agreement to the oral agreement read into the record, the Court also has jurisdiction to make orders to enforce the settlement. (CCP, §664.6(f)(2).)
In this case, the only agreement the Court has to consider is the agreement that was read into the record on August 27, 2025. On that date, the Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6. (Min. Ord. filed Aug. 27, 2025, p. 2.) Thus, the settlement is enforceable so far as the terms that were read into the record, and the Court can order the parties to execute a written agreement pursuant to CCP section 664.6, subd. (f)(2).
According to the terms read into the record, the dispute between the parties settled in an agreement to allow Eddie Overton to live at 631 San Miguelito Road, Lompoc, CA 93436 for sixty days after the date letters issued to Ms. Lang, and at the close of escrow for the property located at 631 San Miguelito Road, Lompoc, CA 93436, Eddie Overton was to be paid $82,500. It is unclear from the body of the motion whether this event has yet to occur.
Accordingly, if the real property has been sold and escrow closed, Eddie Overton is owed $82,500. If the real property has not been sold, the Court has authority to order its sale and the parties to execute a written agreement that incorporates the terms entered into on the record.
However, Movant also requests costs incurred in bringing the motion, citing to CCP section 1032 for authority to award costs. Yet neither section 1032 or section 664.6 authorize costs for a party that prevails on a mere motion, only for a party that prevails on a case with a net monetary recovery or a dismissal, and even if a prevailing movant was contemplated, section 664.5 requires that contemplation to be agreed to by the parties and at least on the record, if not in the writing.
It is, therefore, recommended the Court grant the motion in part to enforce the settlement, but deny the motion as to the request for costs.