Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc

In Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, the plaintiff sued the defendant for falsely representing certain limited partnership investments through its agent, Ronald Thon. At the same time, the plaintiff was a member of a class suing Thon and others (but not the defendant) in connection with the Hill Williams Income Fund II limited partnership. (Id. at p. 555.) The class action was settled, and the settlement agreement included a release of the named defendants and their principals for any claims relating to the Hill Williams entities. (Ibid.) Another panel of this court concluded the defendant was an intended third party beneficiary of the release in the class action settlement agreement. (Id. at pp. 559-560.) This appellate court also concluded the extrinsic evidence the plaintiff sought to offer--declarations regarding the plaintiff's undisclosed intent and belief that the class action settlement release would not cover the defendant in the separate action--was not admissible. (Id. at p. 560.) The exclusion of the extrinsic evidence in that case was consistent with the objective theory of contracts, under which the objective intent of the parties, as evidenced by the words of the contract, rather than the subjective intent of one of the parties, controls the contract's interpretation.