Rachid v. Perez
| Citation | 26 So.3d 70 |
| Decision Date | 20 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D08-1210.,3D08-1210. |
| Parties | Moralinda RACHID, Appellant, v. Omaira Torres PEREZ, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
S. Peter Capua, Miami, for appellant.
Barreto & Romero and Luis E. Barreto, Miami; Billbrough & Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Moralinda Rachid appeals the order denying her motion for rehearing and her motion to set aside the order granting the motion to enforce the mediated settlement agreement. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rachid presented no valid basis for relief, we affirm.
In 1978, Rachid and Arnaldo Martell, the Decedent, entered into a prenuptial agreement, which provided that the past, present and future property of each spouse would remain the property of the respective spouse. Martell died in 2006 while divorce proceedings were pending. Rachid sought an elective share of the Decedent's estate, among other property. The trial court ordered mediation; the parties reached a mediated settlement; and the trial court approved the agreement. When Rachid failed to comply with the settlement agreement, the personal representative of the estate moved to enforce the settlement.1
Just prior to the hearing, Rachid moved for a continuance "to review the documentation relevant to this matter." The motion was denied. At the hearing, Rachid's counsel advised the trial court that he had a conflict of interest and could not take a position on the motion. Rachid testified that she wanted more time to consult with another attorney and to investigate the settlement and the prenuptial agreement. She contended that she had not been given enough information on the value of some of the Decedent's assets and that her attorney told her she could file an appeal after she settled.
The trial court granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Rachid did not appeal this order. Instead, she hired new counsel who filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings and a motion for rehearing and to set aside the order granting the motion to enforce the mediated settlement agreement. In her motions, Rachid raised the conflict issue, alleged that she was uninformed or misunderstood significant facts, and questioned the validity of the prenuptial agreement. The motions were denied. This appeal followed.
Rachid seeks rescission of the settlement agreement based upon unilateral mistake. Because her appeal is directed to the order denying her motion for rehearing and a denial of her motion to set aside the order granting the motion to enforce the mediated settlement, the standard of review is gross abuse of discretion. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 826 So.2d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (). We additionally note that [t]here is a more stringent standard of review, however, when the final judgment to be vacated follows a mediated settlement agreement. Tilden Groves Holding Corp. v. Orlando/Orange County Expressway, 816 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
We begin our analysis with Rachid's failure to present the legal argument of unilateral mistake below. To preserve an issue for appellate review, it "must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation." Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993)). Because Rachid failed to raise the argument of unilateral mistake at the trial court level, this issue is not preserved and not properly before this Court.
Even if Rachid had preserved the issue of unilateral mistake, we would affirm. First, Rachid's burden when seeking rescission of a settlement agreement on this legal theory is a particularly difficult one. See Tilden Groves, 816 So.2d at 660 (); see also Sponga v. Warro, 698 So.2d 621, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Second, Rachid's argument is without merit as the record does not support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
......Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc. , 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 ......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Contract & Bus. Cases—2018 Report.
...... Florida's district courts of appeal have interpreted the Krasnek test for unilateral mistake in different ways. For example, in Rachid v. Perez, 26 So.3d 70, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the Third District Court of Appeal articulated the elements of the defense as a four-part test as ......
-
DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
...the court told us in clear language, three times, that we were bound by the four-part test for unilateral mistake from Rachid v. Perez, 26 So.3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).• First time. "This Court's most recent decisions on this topic clearly articulated and reaffirmed the viability of the four......
-
DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc.
...on this topic clearly articulated and reaffirmed the viability of the four-prong test to establish a unilateral mistake, Rachid v. Perez, 26 So.3d 70, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and this panel—along with the trial court—is of course bound by that decision, see State v. Washington, 114 So.3d 182......
-
Contract cases
..., 180 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1965). §3:60.1.3 Elements of Cause of Action — 3rd DCA [No citation for this edition.] See Also 1. Rachid v. Perez , 26 So.3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Under Florida law, the party seeking rescission based on unilateral mistake must establish that: (1) the mistake wa......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...husband from negotiating settlement of the debt for less than the full amount owed. [Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(b)(5).] • Rachid v. Perez , 26 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying wife’s motion to set aside mediated agreement for unilateral mistak......
-
Two, Three, or Four Prongs? The Contractual Defense of Unilateral Mistake in Florida.
...DCA 2010). (15) DePrince I, 163 So. 3d at 593. (16) Id. at 594 (quoting FLA. STD. JURY INSTR. (CIV.) 416.26). (17) See Rachid v. Perez, 26 So. 3d 70, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA (18) DePrince I, 163 So. 3d at 592. (19) Id. (20) Id. at 593. (21) Id. at 593-95. (22) Id. at 593. (23) Id. at 594. (24) Id. ......