Detailed Answer
Short answer: sometimes. Under California law a signed consent order (sometimes called a stipulated judgment or agreed order) can let parties avoid a contested hearing and direct how sale proceeds are distributed — but whether it will work depends on the type of sale, applicable statutes or court rules, and whether a judge must independently review or approve the transaction.
How consent orders work in California civil cases
In many civil lawsuits, parties can settle the dispute and ask the court to enter a judgment based on their agreement. California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 lets the parties ask the court to either enter a judgment consistent with a settlement or to retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. You can read the statute here: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
If the settlement covers disposition of sale proceeds (for example, proceeds from a court-ordered sale in a partition action or money recovered from the sale of disputed property), parties can submit a proposed stipulated judgment or proposed order that sets out the agreed distribution of proceeds. If the judge has no concerns and the settlement is lawful and complete, the judge can sign the order without holding a contested hearing.
When a hearing is likely required
However, some situations require a court hearing or independent judicial approval before the court can authorize distribution of sale proceeds, even if all parties agree. Common examples include:
- Probate and guardianship/conservatorship cases where statutory procedures require a court confirmation or accounting.
- Sales that were conducted under statutory process (for example, sales following a receivership or certain probate sales) where the statute or local rule requires confirmation or a report to the court.
- Situations involving potentially impaired or unrepresented parties (minor heirs, incapacitated persons, unknown creditors) where the court must ensure the agreement protects their interests.
- Cases where liens, priority claims, or creditor notice requirements must be resolved before distribution.
In those settings, a judge usually needs evidence (an accounting, notice proof, or a hearing) to ensure the distribution complies with statutory priority rules and that notice requirements were met.
Practical steps to try to skip a hearing
- Confirm whether statute or local court rules require a hearing. Search the relevant code (civil, probate, family, or other) or ask the clerk what papers are needed to obtain a signed order without a hearing.
- Prepare a clear, signed stipulation or consent order that itemizes the sale proceeds, states how they will be divided, and explains how liens, costs, and taxes will be paid.
- Attach supporting documents: settlement terms, receipts, accountings, lien payoff statements, and declarations showing all interested parties have signed or received notice.
- File the proposed order and a short supporting declaration that explains why a hearing is unnecessary and certifies there are no objections (or describes objections if present).
- If the judge signs, obtain a signed order directing disbursement. If the court wants a hearing, be prepared to present the evidence required by statute or local rule.
Hypothetical example
Two co-owners sell a rental house during litigation and agree how to split net sale proceeds. They sign a written settlement and ask the court to enter a stipulated judgment under CCP § 664.6 distributing the money. If no third parties (creditors, lienholders, minors) raise objections and the judge finds the allocation lawful, the judge can sign the stipulated order and the parties can disburse the funds without a contested hearing.
When you cannot avoid court oversight
If the sale was conducted under court supervision (for example, a probate sale subject to confirmation or a sale by a receiver), the court may be required by statute or rule to review appraisals, reports, or accountings. In those circumstances, a consent order alone may not be enough to finalize distribution without at least a short hearing or judicial review of the paperwork.
Risks of relying on a consent order
- If you distribute funds based on an order later found to be improper, you may face personal liability for returning funds.
- Creditors or lienholders who did not receive proper notice might later assert claims against distributed proceeds.
- An order signed without proper notice or required findings can be vacated or appealed.
Takeaway: A consent order can often be used to avoid a contested hearing and authorize distribution of sale proceeds in California civil matters, especially when all parties and claimants are identified and agree. But statutory requirements, protected parties, or court-supervised sales may require a hearing, notice, or additional filings before distribution is lawful.
Helpful Hints
- Check whether CCP § 664.6 applies to your case if you plan to use a stipulation to obtain a judgment: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
- For probate or conservatorship matters, review the Probate Code and your local probate rules; many probate sales require additional filings or a report to the court before funds can be distributed.
- Always obtain lien payoff statements and written releases from secured creditors before distribution.
- Include an accounting in your proposed order that shows gross proceeds, closing costs, liens, taxes, and the net amount to each party.
- If minors or incapacitated persons might be affected, ask the court whether a guardian ad litem, conservatorship accounting, or blocked account is required.
- If you’re unsure about required notices or statutory hurdles, consult a lawyer before disbursing funds to reduce the risk of later liability.
Disclaimer: This article explains general principles under California law and common practice. It is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. For guidance tailored to your situation, consult a licensed California attorney.