Villa v. Mumac Const. Corp., 75--1732
| Decision Date | 11 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1732,75--1732 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 274 |
| Parties | Gonzalo VILLA, Appellant, v. MUMAC CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellant.
Cushman & Cushman, Miami, Holtzman & Krause, South Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court enforcing a judgment of settlement, stipulated to in open court by appellant and appellees, and denying his amended motion for a new trial or hearing.
It is appellant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to relieve him from the obligations assumed under the stipulations incorporated in the judgment of settlement, because, allegedly, he was induced to enter into them through fraud and misrepresentation on the part of appellees.
After a hearing on appellant's objections to the enforcement of the judgment of settlement, the trial judge found that there was nothing to show any fraud or misrepresentation. Thereupon, the trial court entered an order enforcing the terms of the judgment of settlement and denying appellant's amended motion for a new trial or hearing.
It is incumbent upon a party seeking to avoid the consequences of stipulations entered into in open court to show good cause why the terms of such stipulations should not be enforced. See Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796; and Esch v. Forster, 123 Fla. 905, 168 So. 229. Here, the trial judge found that appellant had failed to show good cause to entitle him to be relieved of the obligations under the stipulations. This finding arrives in this court with a presumption of correctness, and appellant has failed to make any error appear on appeal. See, e.g., Imperial Lumber Co. v. James Knowles, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 53; Frazee v. Frazee, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 484; Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 75; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 313 and 316. Therefore, the judgment of settlement and order appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De La Guardia v. De La Guardia, 87-2950
...v. Carrison, 486 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Strickland v. Strickland, 344 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); compare Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The wife cross-appeals urging error in the award of......
-
Seabird Properties, Inc. v. Villages of Seaport Condominium, 96-367
...See Wagner v. Mack, 422 So.2d 1045 ( Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 431 So.2d 990 (Fla.1983); see also Villa v. Mumac Constr. Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This is especially so because the law favors settlements. See Crosby Forrest Prods. Inc. v. Byers, 623 So.2d 565 ......