NATIVIDAD SILVA, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS SILVA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed enforcement of an oral settlement agreement in a dissolution action, holding that oral settlement agreements are valid and enforceable under Florida law.
An oral settlement agreement reached at a pretrial status conference is valid and enforceable, and the trial court properly ordered its enforcement based on substantial evidence of the parties' agreement.
[1] An oral settlement agreement in a dissolution action is valid and enforceable under Florida law when substantial evidence establishes that the parties agreed to its terms…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“oral settlement agreement is valid”
Court cited Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass'n, Inc., applying the common law rule that oral settlement agreements are valid under Florida law.
In a dissolution action, the parties' counsel announced at a pretrial status conference that their clients had reached a settlement, but the settlemen…
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 Pretrial Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
At a pretrial “status” conference, counsel for both parties in this dissolution action announced to the trial judge, without dictating its provisions into the record, that their clients had reached a settlement of the case. In the order under review, the trial judge concluded on disputed but substantial evidence that the parties had in fact orally agreed to the terms of a property settlement agreement and ordered its enforcement.1 We affirm upon the conclusion that there is no cognizable basis upon which an agreement entered into under these circumstances may or should be refused effect. See Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 421 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (applying common law rule applicable under present Fla.R.Jud.Ad. 2.060(g) that oral settlement agreement is valid); Buskirk v. Suddath of South Florida, Inc., 400 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same); see generally, applying the rules that settlement agreements are favored, are not subject to repudiation, and may be enforced summarily, Mortgage Corp. of America v. Inland Construction Co., 463 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dorson v. Dorson, 393 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Autera v. Robinson, 419 F. 2d 1197, 1200-01 (D.C.Cir.1969), and cases collected; CIA Anon Venezolana de Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F. 2d 33, 35 (5th Cir.1967), and cases collected.
Affirmed.
. Cf. Cooke v. Cooke, 126 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (trial court correctly declined to enforce oral agreement when court’s express requirement for its reduction to writing was not fulfilled).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Long Term Mgmt., Inc. v. Univ. Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 704 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…tipulation properly entered into the record, where there is a clear understanding of the finality of that agreement, is an effective and enforceable settlement notwithstanding that it is subject to reduction to a written document.”); Silva v. Silva, 467 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). To be judicially enforceable, a settlement agreement “must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable as to every essential element.” Williams v. Ingram, 605 So. 2d at 893; Gaines v. Nortrust Realty Management, Inc., 422 So.…
-
AL Estes Bonding, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 845 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…s not controlling in this case. See also Schmidt v. Osceola County, 517 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (relying on Chase to hold order denying motion to set aside bond estreature was nonfinal nonap-pealable); cf. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Hagman, 467 So. 2d 1065, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding order denying remission was appealable final order and noting that court had dismissed prior “appeal” of motion to vacate estreature without prejudice to filing motion for remission). Although, as Chase noted, sec…
-
Southland Ins. Co. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ave been set aside for two reasons. First, the clerk of court failed to give the surety the required seventy-two (72) hours notice pursuant to section 903.-26(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). See Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. v. Hag- [*1332] man, 467 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Second, the form of the notice sent was defective and ambiguous. It did not state the nature of the hearing; that the defendant’s presence was required; or that…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dorson v. Gertrude Dorson, 393 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
- CIA Anon Venezolana de Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Sockolof v. Eden Point N. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 421 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Nell Mills Cooke v. Cooke, 126 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Mortg. Corp. OF Am. v. Inland Constr. Co., 463 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Arbutus L. Buskirk v. Suddath OF S. Fla., Inc., 400 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)