State v. Vandonick

• Decision Date: 01 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 2D00-243.,2D00-243.
• Citation: 800 So.2d 239
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert VANDONICK, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

800 So.2d 239

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert VANDONICK, Appellee.

No. 2D00-243.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 1, 2001.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Steven G. Lavely, Bradenton, for Appellee.

SALCINES, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals the restitution order which limited Robert Vandonick's liability to the sum specified in a civil insurance settlement agreement. Based on the facts in the present case, we affirm because the express terms of the release and settlement agreement bound the parties in both the criminal prosecution and the civil litigation.

Vandonick was charged with reckless driving and third-degree felony battery for an incident which occurred on December 24, 1998. An amended information alleged that, while driving an automobile, Vandonick injured Alice Jane Berry by intentionally touching or striking her. On May 11, 1999, a release and settlement agreement was executed by the victim's father, James S. Berry, individually and for and on behalf of Ms. Berry, an incapacitated person. This agreement stated that for the sum of $50,000.00, Vandonick and his insurance company, Allstate Insurance Company, were released and forever discharged

of and from all actions, causes of actions, injuries, damages to persons and property, judgments, executions, claims and demands in every sort of nature whatsoever, which [Ms. Berry and Mr. Berry] may now have or hereafter have against [Vandonick] ... from the beginning of the world to date and the day of these presents, including any claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of the incident of December 24, 1998, in which it is alleged that [Ms. Berry] received bodily injuries as a result of an accident on December 24, 1998.

The release and settlement agreement concluded with the following paragraph:

[T]he terms of this Release and Settlement have been ... accepted for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of any and all claims, disputed or otherwise, resulting from the aforementioned incident and it is specifically agreed that this release shall be a complete bar to all claims or suits for injuries or damages in whatever nature resulting or to result from said incident of December 24, 1998.

On September 8, 1999, almost four months after the release and settlement agreement had been executed, Vandonick entered a plea of no contest to reckless driving and to the lesser included offense of culpable negligence. Thereafter, following a restitution hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that restitution in the amount of $50,000.00 had been agreed to by Vandonick and Ms. Berry. The parties' understanding was evidenced by the release and settlement agreement. The court noted that the victim's medical bills far exceeded the $50,000.00 figure; however, the restitution amount was limited to that which Vandonick and Ms. Berry had previously agreed. The court ordered $50,000.00 in restitution to be paid by Vandonick.

This is a case of first impression in Florida. However, we note that settlements are governed by the rules for the interpretation of contracts. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985). Such agreements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible. Id. Upon entering into the release and settlement agreement, any rights and duties the parties had at that moment were merged into the agreement, unless otherwise stated. See J. Allen, Inc. v. Castle Floor Covering, Inc., 543 So.2d 249, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

Considering the explicit language in the release and settlement agreement and the fact that it was executed before Vandonick entered his plea, we hold that Ms. Berry is precluded from recovering, in restitution, more than the $50,000.00 she has already been allotted pursuant to the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., Concurs.

NORTHCUTT, J., Dissents with opinion.

NORTHCUTT, J., dissenting.

With due respect and esteem for my colleagues, I would reverse. When determining a proper restitution amount the sentencing court simply was not bound by the civil settlement and release between the defendant and the victim.

For one thing, the State was not a party to the settlement transaction, nor were its interests represented. This is significant because restitution is only partially founded on the victim's right to be compensated. Just as important is the State's right to have the victim made whole by the perpetrator. The State's interest coincides with the victim's only insofar as the latter seeks compensation...