In Re: The Williams Family Trust

24PR001507: IN RE: THE WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Attorney Fees in Department 126

13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Movant Mark Williams’ (“Movant”) motion to enforce settlement agreement and for award of attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED.

This matter relates to the Williams Family Trust involving siblings and beneficiaries Movant, Respondent Maurice Williams (“Respondent”), Myles Williams, Michel Williams, and Martin Williams. After competing petitions were filed in Fresno County and Sacramento County, the parties attended mediation on November 7, 2024 and reached a stipulated settlement agreement regarding a high-value 1953 SIATA vehicle. (MPA, 9:6-10.) As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to pay $40,000 to each sibling within two weeks of court approval of the settlement, $37,500 to each brother due one year after court approval, and $625 monthly payments to each sibling for 36 months, beginning on January 2, 2026. (MPA, 9:12-15; Declaration of Cerron L.

Wilkins [“Wilkins Decl.”], Exhibit B, ¶ 2.3.) Respondent completed only the first $40,000 payments. (MPA, 9:23-24.) Movant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement for the outstanding payments by Maurice.

In opposition, Respondent indicates paragraph five of the settlement includes “an implied condition of good faith and fair dealing, that the Trust would turn over the pick [sic] slip to Maurice as the registered owner with the trust to retain its interest as the lienholder.” (Opposition, 5:24-26.) Respondent maintains that he has not breached the terms of the agreement, because he has not been given possession of the vehicle.

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to the settlement terms. (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 439 [“[T]he court may...retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement, until such time as all of its terms have been performed by the parties, if the parties have requested this specific retention of jurisdiction.”].) Here, the parties expressly requested retention of jurisdiction pursuant to the settlement term found at paragraph 1.8. (Wilkins Decl., Exhibit B, ¶ 1.8.) The terms of the settlement expressly provide for the payment amounts, timelines, and recipients. Maurice has not yet complied with at least

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001507: IN RE: THE WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 07/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Attorney Fees in Department 126

two of those provisions, the $37,500 to each brother due one year after court approval, and $625 monthly payments to each sibling for 36 months, beginning on January 2, 2026. (Opposition, 5:1-2, 10.) “[C]ourts shall not construe a term of the contract so as to establish a condition precedent absent plain and unambiguous contract language to that effect.” (Frankel v. Board of Dental Examiners (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 534, 550, citing Rubin v. Fuchs (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 50, 53.) The language of the agreement does not plainly and unambiguously establish the pink slip would be provided upon certain payments being made.

Even if the Court were to construe paragraph five of the settlement as “an implied condition of good faith and fair dealing[] that the Trust would turn over the pick [sic] slip to Maurice as the registered owner with the trust to retain its interest as the lienholder,” that interpretation does provide a timeline for when the parties were purportedly required to provide Maurice with the pink slip. Nor does this implied condition afford Maurice the ability to ignore the express terms for payment until the pink slip is provided.

The prevailing party in any petition or litigation to enforce this agreement is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. (Wilkins Decl., Exhibit B, ¶ 12.) Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the requests for fees in the amount of $12,537.50 are GRANTED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)