PERIMETER INVESTMENTS, INC.; AND E. LAMAR BAILEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERIFIRST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE; ELBA, INC., APPELLANT, V. AMERIFIRST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendants in mortgage foreclosure actions sought injunctions to prevent the plaintiff from continuing litigation, claiming a settlement agreement had been reached. The court held that the Statute of Frauds applies to oral settlement agreements involving the transfer of property, rendering the alleged settlement unenforceable and thus providing no basis for injunctive relief.
The court held that the Statute of Frauds applies to settlement agreements involving the transfer of property, even if oral, and therefore an oral settlement agreement including property transfer is unenforceable. Consequently, the defendants failed to establish grounds for injunctive relief, and the trial courts properly denied their motions for temporary injunctions.
[1] Appeals from orders denying leave to file counterclaims are generally not immediately appealable and must be raised on direct appeal from a final judgment.
[2] Interlocutory orders denying temporary injunctions are immediately appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that it does, finding no legislative enactment, court rule or decisional authority that specifically exempts settlement agreements from its purview.”
Establishes that the Statute of Frauds applies to settlement agreements involving property transfer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerifirst Development Company initiated mortgage foreclosure actions against the defendants (Perimeter Investments, Inc., E. Lamar Bailey, and ELBA, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforceability Of Oral Settlement Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The appellants, defendants in two mortgage foreclosure actions below, claim that Amerifirst, the plaintiff, has continued to prosecute the lawsuits in violation of the parties’ settlement agreement. In four orders, trial judges in Leon and Bay counties have denied the defendants’ motions for leave to file a counterclaim which sought specific performance of the settlement agreement, and they have denied the defendants’ motions for temporary injunctions designed to prevent Amerifirst from proceeding with the action. In these consolidated appeals, the defendants challenge the four orders.
Preliminarily, we dismiss the appeals regarding the counterclaims. Our jurisdiction to consider non-final orders is specifically limited by court rule. See Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(3). The judges’ orders in this regard are susceptible of review on direct appeal from final judgment. See generally, Summerlin v. Epps, 340 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and authorities cited therein.
We do have jurisdiction, however, to consider the interlocutory orders denying the injunctions. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). We affirm the orders denying injunctive relief because the appellants failed to establish that a wrong has been done or will be done. See Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Company, 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
The dispositive hornbook issue is whether the Statute of Frauds, Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981),1 applies to litigation settlement agreements. We hold that it does, finding no legislative enactment, court rule or decisional authority that specifically exempts settlement agreements from its purview.
It is not materially disputed that the settlement agreement was oral and that it included among its terms the transfer of property from defendants to plaintiff. By operation of Section 725.01, the agreement was unenforceable. Therefore the bare showing that the bank may have reneged on the settlement cannot, without more, be grounds for an injunction.
The defendants assert that because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.030(d) permits settlement agreements to be oral, the Statute of Frauds is inapplicable. The defendants also contend that the statute should not apply because the agreement was not a contract for the “sale” of land, as contemplated by the statute. We must reject both arguments.
First, assuming for the moment that the Statute of Frauds could be abrogated by court rule, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.030(d) neither addresses nor affects the statute. The rule and the statute are not inconsistent; to the contrary, they act hand in glove to simplify the settlement process while protecting the parties’ rights when the subject of such an agreement is the transfer of land.
We find the defendants’ second argument, that the Statute of Frauds applies only to “sales,” to be meritless. See, e.g., Green v. Price, 63 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1953).
Accordingly, the orders denying injunctive relief are affirmed. The appeals regarding the counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice to the appellants’ raising the issue on direct appeal.
SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . “No action shall be brought ... to charge any person ... upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments ... unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged ...”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…h of the above-mentioned orders is in no way related to the order granting injunc-tive relief which is the only matter over which this court has jurisdiction. In Perimeter Investments, Inc. v. Amerifirst Development Company of Central Florida, Inc., 423 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the First District Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider consolidated appeals from the trial court’s orders denying defendants’ motions for leave to file counterclaims but that it did have jurisdiction pur…
-
Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ere erroneous. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Sarnoff, 776 So. 2d 976, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Benton, J., dissenting). Jurisdiction to review a non-final order denying an injunction does not confer plenary a…
-
Chicago Title Ins. Agency OF LEE Cnty., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…m the order denying the motion to dismiss, but reverse the preliminary mandatory injunction. Our jurisdiction to consider nonfi-nal orders is limited by court rule. Perimeter Investments, Inc. v. Amerifirst Development Co. of Central Florida, Inc., 423 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3) and Art. V, sec. 4, Fla. Const. An order granting an injunction is an appealable nonfinal order, Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B), however an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable until…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Green v. Price, 63 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1953)
- Summerlin v. Epps, 340 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Rowe v. State, 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Marston v. Gainesville SUN Publ'g Co., Inc., 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)