In Heuns v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 259, a party sought to avoid a settlement agreement based on a claim of attorney fault. In finding section 473 did not apply, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that section 473's mandatory relief provision was not intended to be "used indiscriminately by . . . attorneys as a 'perfect escape hatch.'" (Heuns, at pp. 263-264.) In so holding, the Court of Appeal reasoning that finding section 473 applied would allow a settlement agreement to be set aside even where there were no grounds for rescission, and would seriously intrude into the law of contracts. Further, creating new contract rules under section 473 would undermine the strong public policy in favor of settlements. (Id. at pp. 264-265.)