If you're in need of authority to enforce an existing  (but perhaps ambiguous) settlement agreement, take a look at today's 2d DCA opinion, Osumi v. Sutton. 

In holding that the trial court had "the power to extend the deadline for the performance [of a real estate sales settlement contract] in favor of a party who was not at fault for the delay and against the party who was at fault," the Court relied upon the following general principles favoring the enforcement of settlement agreements under CCP section 664.6.

In determining whether a valid settlement agreement under section 664.6 exists, the trial court,

• acts as the trier of fact
• may consider oral testimony
• may determine the motion upon declarations alone
• may consult his [or her] own memory if s/he was the settlement officer presiding over the challenged settlement

More importantly, although "nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon,"

[o]nce the parties have reached a settlement . . . they 'may not escape their obligations by refusing to sign a written agreement that conforms to the oral terms' [and] with our policy favoring settlements, we resolve all evidentiary conflicts and draw all reasonable inferences to support the trial court's finding that these parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement and its order enforcing that agreement. The trial court here did not create a material term of the settlement.

Remember, however, that enforcing the oral terms of a mediated settlement agreement may be much more problematic than enforcing those of an agreement reached in a mandatory settlement conference before a Judge.