Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 81-882
| Decision Date | 15 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-882,81-882 |
| Parties | LOTSPEICH COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. NEOGARD CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tutan, O'Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellant.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Michael J. Murphy, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
In an action for contribution against a joint tort-feasor the trial court's personal dislike for the terms of a good faith settlement between the tort victim and defendant/third-party plaintiff could be no basis for directing a verdict for the third-party defendant where the reasonableness of the settlement was agreed to by all the parties. 1 Settlement agreements are highly favored in the law and will be upheld whenever possible because they are means of amicably resolving doubts and preventing lawsuits, Pearson v. Ecological Science Corp., 522 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1975), reh. denied, 525 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied in Skydell v. Ecological Science Corp., 425 U.S. 912, 96 S.Ct. 1508, 47 L.Ed.2d 762 (1976); Coe v. Deiner, 159 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Russell v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, 128 So.2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. disch., 137 So.2d 219 (1962), and should not be invalidated or, as here, collaterally defeated by the court, unless there is (1) failure of the agreement to satisfy required elements for a contract, (2) illegality, (3) fraud, (4) duress, (5) undue influence or, (6) mistake, 15 Am.Jur., Compromise and Settlement, § 27, none of which are alleged or shown to be present in this case.
Where the parties to the third-party litigation stipulated on the record that a settlement had been effected with the tort victim, fixing the amount of damages at $600,000.00, and that the settlement would not be an issue in the third-party action for contribution, it was error to direct a verdict on grounds that the third-party plaintiff failed to produce the tort victim for testimony regarding the terms or effect of the settlement. 2
Pretrial stipulations prescribing the issues on which a case is to be tried are binding upon the parties and the court, and should be strictly enforced. Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971). 3
Appellee asserts that the trial court can be affirmed for the reason that there was no evidence presented upon which a jury could have returned a verdict for the appellant. Upon examination of the record we must disagree. There is evidence, though conflicting, or susceptible to different reasonable inferences, tending to prove third-party plaintiff's case, therefore the issues should have been submitted to the jury. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Behar v. Root, 393 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Laird v. Potter, 367 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1967).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
1 The first $500,000.00 of the settlement was payable upon execution of the release documents and the balance of $100,000.00 was to be paid after trial on the third-party complaint for contribution, to insure that the tort victim, who was moving his residence to Georgia, would return to give testimony. The court's displeasure with the agreement is expressed several places in the record:
Mr. Reese [for appellant]: No, no. He is going to get the hundred thousand after this case is finished.
The Court: Regardless of what his testimony is?
Mr. Reese: Regardless.
Mr. Demahy [for appellant]: It was just to make him accessible, Judge. You can impeach him if he testifies differently.
Mr. Reese: He has been deposed twice. He is not changing his testimony.
I am opposed to the Mary Carter agreements. I am opposed to any of those little, cute agreements that we are going to hold a thousand dollars back depending on his testimony.
Mr. Reese: It is not depending on anybody's testimony.
The Court: ...
Let us try the case. I do not know what I am going to do.
I am mad, but that jury is sure going to know that you are going to pay him a hundred thousand dollars for being here today. That is the least thing I will do.
2 The reason given on the record for directing a verdict is failure to introduce the release document as evidence--a point which had not been raised by third-party defendant. The trial court denied a motion to re-open the case for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levenson v. American Laser Corp.
...faith by competent parties. Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464, 156 So. 893 (Fla.1934); Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State Department of Transportation v. Plunske, 267 So.2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). While a decree entered upon a ......
-
Mulhern v. Rogers
...F.2d 706, 710 (11th Cir.1984) (citing with approval DeWitt v. Miami Transit Co., 95 So.2d 898 (Fla.1957); and, Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982)). ...
-
Walker v. Trump, 88-1309
...the pre-trial statement, or at trial. The court on its own could not make Mr. Slade's status an issue. Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bobenhausen v. Boucher, 377 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Therefore, the trial court erred in injecting this issue in the......
-
Delgado v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
...on which a case is to be tried are binding upon the parties and the court, and should be strictly enforced." Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp. , 416 So.2d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citing Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank , 252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971) ). Further, "[i]t is the policy of the law......