Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 2D08-41.
| Decision Date | 05 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-41.,2D08-41. |
| Citation | 14 So.3d 282 |
| Parties | PRESTIGE VALET, INC., f/k/a A & A of Tampa, Inc., Appellant, v. Louis J. "Duke" MENDEL, III, Michael D. Malatin, and Healthcare Parking Systems, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jean Marie Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, and Michael D. LaBarbera of LaBarbera & Campbell, Tampa, for Appellant.
Richard J. McIntyre and Justin D. Eleff of McIntyre, Panzarella, Thanasides, Eleff & Hoffman, P.L., Tampa, for Appellee Louis J. "Duke" Mendel, III.
No appearance for Appellees Michael D. Malatin and Healthcare Parking Systems, Inc.
Prestige Valet, Inc. (Prestige) appeals a final order denying its motion to set aside a settlement agreement Prestige entered with Louis J. Mendel (the Prestige-Mendel agreement) and an order enforcing the settlement agreement and awarding Mendel attorney's fees. We reverse and conclude the trial court erred in requiring Prestige to file a motion to set aside a codefendant's settlement agreement as a condition precedent to granting the motion to set aside the Prestige-Mendel agreement, because each agreement constituted a separate and distinct contract.
The underlying dispute arose from Prestige's prior business relationship with codefendants Mendel, who served as president of Prestige, and Michael D. Malatin. In 1996, while working for Prestige, Malatin formed Healthcare Parking Systems, Inc., and he and Mendel entered into a profit-sharing agreement based on this competing business. In 2001, Prestige's new president discovered documents implicating Mendel and Malatin in stolen trade name use, payments of the competing company's expenses, and missing revenue. Prestige subsequently filed suit against Mendel, Malatin, and Healthcare Parking Systems, Inc., seeking $3.2 million for tortious interference, conversion and use of Prestige's business opportunities and trade name "Healthcare Parking," breach of duties to their employer, and civil conspiracy.
Relying on several misrepresentations made by the defendants, the trial court severely limited discovery.1 Consequently, Prestige was unable to sustain the allegations and entered into an $11,000 settlement agreement with Mendel.
Following the Prestige-Mendel agreement, Malatin's participation in a federal investigation revealed the defendants' fraud on the court and misrepresentations that resulted in limited discovery.2 Prestige then entered into an $800,000 settlement agreement with Malatin and Healthcare Parking Systems, Inc. (the Prestige-Malatin agreement), and filed a motion to set aside the Prestige-Mendel agreement because the agreement was based on fraud and misrepresentation.
The court entered an order denying Prestige's motion to set aside the Prestige-Mendel agreement but providing Prestige with time to refile the motion in connection with a motion to set aside the Prestige-Malatin agreement. When Prestige failed to do so, the trial court entered a final order enforcing the Prestige-Mendel agreement and an order awarding attorney's fees to Mendel pursuant to the Prestige-Mendel agreement. This appeal followed.
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying Prestige's motion to set aside the Prestige-Mendel agreement based upon Prestige's failure to file a motion to set aside the Prestige-Malatin agreement because each agreement was separate and distinct. This court reviews for an abuse of discretion a ruling on a motion to set aside based on fraud. Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Settlement agreements are highly favored by the law and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GE Med. Sys. S.C.S. v. SYMX Healthcare Corp.
...or, in the guise of interpretation, relieve a contracting party from the consequences of a bad bargain, Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 14 So. 3d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).Famiglio v. Famiglio, 279 So. 3d 736, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); see also Circuitronix, LLC v. Kapoor, 440 F. Supp. 3d 1......
-
Pena v. Fox
...97 So.2d at 608 (“The writing itself is the evidence of what [the parties] meant or intended by signing it.”); Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 14 So.3d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The contracting parties' intent is determined from within the four corners of the document and construed in a......
-
Famiglio v. Famiglio
...or, in the guise of interpretation, relieve a contracting party from the consequences of a bad bargain, Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 14 So. 3d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Much of the trial court's interpretation rested upon its assessment that the indefinite article "a" in section 5.3's......
-
Bd. of Regents v. Rowsey
...quoting Barakat v. Broward Cnty. Hous. Auth., 771 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla 4th DCA 2000) ; and then citing Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 14 So. 3d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) )). This court need not assess the reasonableness of USF's expectation that—consistent with the language of the Sett......