GWENDOLYN R. DENTON, APPELLANT,
v.
SILLATO PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A S & S PROJECTS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gwendolyn Denton appeals a trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement requiring her to close on a home purchase. The court affirmed, finding that Denton failed to close without justification and that any alleged breaches by the developer were immaterial and cured before the closing deadline.
The alleged breaches asserted by Denton were not material and had been completed prior to the closing date, therefore Denton was in default under the settlement agreement and Sillato Properties was entitled to enforce it.
[1] A settlement agreement is enforceable when a party fails to close on a property within the agreed-upon timeframe, despite alleging minor, cured breaches by the other part…
[2] A trial court's finding that alleged breaches of a settlement agreement are not material and were cured within the closing period will be affirmed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a comprehensive settlement agreement was reached which called for the parties to close on the subject residence within thirty days of the signing of the settlement agreement”
Establishes the material term of the settlement agreement that Denton breached
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDenton contracted to purchase a single-family home in June 2002 from an original developer. The contract was modified and assigned multiple times befo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Materiality Of Breach cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Gwendolyn Denton appeals the trial court’s granting of Sillato Properties, Inc. d/b/a S & S Projects’, motion to enforce settlement and final judgment for damages and attorney’s fees. We affirm.
In June 2002, Denton entered into a contract for construction and purchase of a single family home with the original developer. The development property changed ownership over the years. The contract was subsequently modified and assigned to numerous developers until a final contract (the Contingent Modification and Assignment Agreement) was entered into with Sillato Properties in December 2004, for the completion of the home and its purchase by Denton.
In December 2006, with the house finally nearing completion, disputes arose between the parties concerning the terms of the final contract, conditions and features of the house, and Denton’s willingness to close. This prompted Sillato Properties to file a suit against Denton alleging a breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the terms and obligations of the final contract. Thereafter, Denton filed a separate action against Sillato Properties alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance of the final contract. These two lawsuits were consolidated and the parties were ordered to mediation. Following mediation, a compre hensive settlement agreement was reached which called for the parties to close on the subject residence within thirty days of the signing of the settlement agreement.
Denton failed to close at the appointed time, contending that Sillato Properties failed to timely complete certain requirements of the mediation agreement and therefore she was relieved from proceeding to the closing. At the time of closing, Sillato Properties had completed all of the requirements of the mediation agreement. The trial court found that the breaches alleged by Denton were not material and were cured within the thirty-day time period for closing. Therefore, Denton was in default and Sillato Properties was entitled to enforce the settlement. We agree that the alleged breaches asserted by Denton were not material and had been completed prior to the date of closing. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
KLEIN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.