Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., 88-43

Decision Date25 October 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-43,88-43
Citation13 Fla. L. Weekly 2391,533 So.2d 856
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 2391 Eduardo LECHUGA, Appellant, v. FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Big Daddy's Lounge, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Rossano, Torrent & Leyte-Vidal and Robert Rossano, Miami, for appellant.

Proenza, White, Huck & Suarez and H. Clay Roberts and David White, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Lechuga instituted a lawsuit against Flanigan's, seeking $45,000 in damages for injuries suffered when he was attacked and beaten in the parking lot of a Big Daddy's liquor lounge, owned and operated by Flanigan's.

On or about October 31, 1985, during settlement negotiations, Flanigan's counsel informed Lechuga's attorney that Flanigan's would be filing a bankruptcy petition on November 4, 1985. Based on that representation, Lechuga's attorney advised Mr. Lechuga and obtained authorization to accept a $4,500 settlement. The case was dismissed after the trial court was apprised of the negotiations and settlement.

Later, Lechuga's attorney learned that Flanigan's did not file for a liquidation in bankruptcy, as was represented to Lechuga, but instead filed for reorganization under the bankruptcy laws. When the settlement and release documents were offered for execution, Lechuga refused to sign contending that (1) he was misled concerning Flanigan's intentions, (2) his attorney was authorized to settle only if Flanigan's was going into liquidation under the bankruptcy laws, (3) his attorney had no authorization to settle on terms and conditions other than as specified, (4) the settlement is unreasonable, and (5) there was a unilateral mistake as to the defendant's ability to satisfy a judgment.

This appeal is brought from a trial court order compelling enforcement of the $4,500 settlement agreement.

There is no evidence in the record which supports the trial court's finding that Lechuga's counsel had blanket authority to unconditionally settle the case for $4,500. In fact, the unrebutted testimony is to the contrary. The employment of an attorney does not, of itself, give the attorney authority to compromise the client's cause of action or settle the client's claim, Palm Beach Royal Hotel, Inc. v. Breese, 154 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), absent an emergency situation. Bursten v. Green, 172 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). It follows that an attorney has no authority to settle a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Henson v. James M. Barker Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 1990
    ...supports the requisite elements of that claim. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965); Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., 533 So.2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 445 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So.......
  • Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 2018
    ...163 So.3d 586, 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ( DePrince I ); Rachid v. Perez, 26 So.3d 70, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enters., Inc., 533 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In another line of cases, we have not required the party seeking rescission to prove that she was induced t......
  • DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 2018
    ...said: "To reiterate our position on unilateral mistake of fact, this Court currently adheres to the four-prong test as stated in Rachid and Lechuga. Id. at 594 (emphasis added). The four-prong test "as stated" in Rachid and Lechuga included that "there [be] no negligence or want of due care......
  • DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 2015
    ...opposing party has not so changed that granting the relief would be unjust.Rachid, 26 So.3d at 72 (quoting Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enters., Inc., 533 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ); Ali R. Ghahramani, M.D., P.A. v. Pablo A. Guzman, M.D., P.A., 768 So.2d 535, 537 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Two, Three, or Four Prongs? The Contractual Defense of Unilateral Mistake in Florida.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 95 No. 6, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...Corp. v. Tobon, 715 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). (30) DePrince II, 271 So. 3d at 17. (31) See Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., 533 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Anderson, 445 So. 2d at 612; Tobon, 715 So. 2d at 1122. (32) DePrince II, 271 So. 3d at 18. (33) Krasnek, 174 So. 2d 5......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT