Carroll v. Carroll, 87-3223
| Citation | 532 So.2d 1109,13 Fla. L. Weekly 2308 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3223,87-3223 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2308 Paula J. CARROLL, Appellant, v. James S. CARROLL, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Norman S. Segall of Segall & Gold, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Gerald Mager and Kathleen Molchan of Hatch, Mager, Casey & Beilly, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
The order of the trial court, granting the husband's motion to enforce a disputed settlement agreement, is reversed.
It is apparent from the record that the trial court accepted the husband's proffer that a settlement had been reached, based solely upon a letter from husband's attorney to the wife's attorney confirming the terms of a purported agreement. The wife's lawyer did not respond to the letter.
The trial court made no finding regarding an acceptance of the agreement terms by the wife other than as incident to the conclusion, based on the failure of the wife's lawyer to respond, that the lawyers had reached an agreement.
In Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), this court recognized the following general rules governing the enforcement of disputed settlement agreements:
(1) A party seeking judgment on the basis of compromise and settlement has the burden of establishing assent by the opposing party....
(2) The mere employment of an attorney does not itself give the attorney the implied or apparent authority to compromise his client's cause of action....
(3) An exception to the general rule is a situation in which the attorney is confronted with an emergency which requires prompt action to protect his client's interest and consultation with the client is impossible....
(4) A client may give his attorney special or express authority to compromise or settle his cause of action, but such authority must be clear and unequivocal....
(5) An unauthorized compromise, executed by an attorney, unless subsequently ratified by his client, is of no effect and may be repudiated or ignored and treated as a nullity by the client. [citations omitted]
Id. at 822-23. See also Palm Beach County v. Boca Development Associates, Ltd., 485 So.2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State Department of Transportation v. Plunske, 267 So.2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Service Corp., 326 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc., 178 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Here, there was no evidence demonstrating that Mrs. Carroll had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samra v. Shaheen Business and Investment Group
...party must establish a meeting of the minds or mutual or reciprocal assent to a certain and definite proposition."); Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So.2d 1109, 1109 (Fla.App.1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1989). Because the enforcement of settlement agreements is governed by general contr......
-
GE Med. Sys. S.C.S. v. SYMX Healthcare Corp.
...the opposing party assented to the terms of the agreement." BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d at 1133 (citing Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). 1. Plain Language Under Florida law, it is well settled that, "[w]hen interpreting a contract, the court must first e......
-
Hannah v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.
... ... opposing party assented to its terms. Miles, 677 ... F.Supp.2d at 1315 (citing Carroll v. Carroll, 532 ... So.2d 1109, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)) ... Principles ... ...
-
Bp Products North America v. Oakridge at Winegard
...enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of showing the opposing party assented to the terms of the agreement. Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 1332 To compel enforcement of a settlement agreement, its terms must be sufficiently specific ......