Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
In California...
In a settlement for unlawful detainer with a general and 1542 release, can a party expressly reserve claims which the settlement already deems are fully resolved and fully litigated (and would that hold up if they do - which takes precedence)/that the settlement itself was intended to resolve and elsewhere directly states that it resolves those issues?
Also, in an action based on that, can a party introduce evidence to support those claims when the contract states that no other previous agreements/evidence may be introduced in a dispute "concerning the scope of the terms herein" (without expressly reserving the right to introduce that evidence)?
Basically, how much does that express reservation (in the waive/release) factor in when the agreement otherwise already states that those *same* claims are fully resolved/litigated and determined (reserving claims that not longer exist, or does the reservation over-power the settlement terms/litigation itself) - that resolving those claims is the purpose of the settlement itself? Thank you!
2 Answers from Attorneys
It is difficult to answer your question without taking a look at the settlement documents. Feel free to contact me during the week with more details for, at least, some direction. If you have an attorney, of course, you should ask these questions of your attorney
That doesn't make any sense. A general release does not release unknown claims, unless there is a waiver of Civil Code section 1542. The 1542 is not a release, it's a waiver of the right to bring claims later in the future that were unknown at the time of settlement. But you are talking about reserving claims, which is a whole other matter altogether. You can't settle and then bring claims you knew about later, regardless of whether or not there was a 1542 waiver, unless there is specific language in the settlement agreement to that effect.