Davies v. Canco Enterprises
| Decision Date | 13 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1299,76-1299 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 23 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Michael L. DAVIES and Ferncrest Utilities, Inc., Appellants, v. CANCO ENTERPRISES, a partnership consisting of Murray A. Candib and Ollie Cohen, Appellees. |
Tendrich & Todd, Miami, Ryan & Shahood, Dania, for appellants.
John W. Watson, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.
By this appeal we are asked to review a final judgment enforcing the terms of the stipulation and settlement agreement allegedly entered into by the parties to this appeal. The appellants contend inter alia that the agreement is unenforceable because it was incorporated into the transcript of a deposition which neither the parties nor their respective attorneys ever signed or waived signing. We agree and reverse.
The law is clear that "(n)o private agreement or consent between parties or their attorneys shall be of any force unless the evidence thereof is in writing, subscribed by the party or his attorney against whom it is alleged; provided that parol agreements may be made before the court if promptly made a part of the record or incorporated in the stenographic notes of the proceedings and agreements made at depositions which are incorporated in the transcript thereof need not be signed when signing thereof is waived." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.030(d). An agreement entered into in a lawsuit between the parties or their attorneys which does not conform with these formalities is unenforceable. Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Melfi Construction, Inc. v. Coastal Theaters, Inc., 279 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The stipulation and settlement agreement involved in this case was incorporated into the transcript of a deposition which was never signed by the parties or their respective attorneys and in which the proper signatures were not waived by the parties or their attorneys. It is, therefore, clear that the said agreement is of no force and effect and a final judgment based thereon must be reversed.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 81-2311
...which during its existence was construed to require that substantive settlements be in writing. See, e.g., Davies v. Canco Enterprises, 350 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Rule 1.030(d) was repealed effective July 1, 1979, and the settlement ......
-
Ashfort Corp. v. Palmetto Const. Group, Inc., 24253
...other states. 2 Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Hous. Auth., 172 Ariz. 389, 837 P.2d 750 (Ct.App.1992); Davies v. Canco Enter., 350 So.2d 23 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); Omaha Nat'l Bank of Omaha v. Mullenax, 211 Neb. 830, 320 N.W.2d 755 (1982); Estate of Pewthers v. Holland Page Indus.......
-
Buskirk v. Suddath of South Florida, Inc.
...the agreement did not comply with the requirements of Rule 1.030(d), and for that reason is unenforceable. Davies v. Canco Enterprises, 350 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Moore v. Gunning, 328 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Appellees, howeve......
-
Acadia Development Corp. v. Rinker Materials Corp.
...We note that the $15,000 was not formally tendered and that the sincerity, not to mention the enforceability, see Davies v. Canco Enterprises, 350 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), of this offer is otherwise in serious question in the light of the defendants' continued contesting of Rinker's rig......