MARC WEITZMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY WILLIAM BERGMAN AND LESLIE INC., D/B/A POMPANO HONDA, APPELLEES
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.
Weitzman appeals a trial court's dismissal based on a motion to compel settlement, arguing his attorney lacked authority to settle his personal injury claim. The appellate court reversed, holding that the attorney had only conditional authority to settle (contingent on the client's wife's consent) and that the party seeking to enforce the settlement failed to demonstrate clear and unequivocal authorization.
No. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Berman had only conditional authority to settle (not the clear and unequivocal authority required) and that the insurance company, as the party seeking to enforce the settlement, failed to meet its burden of proving the attorney was authorized to settle.
[1] A client's express authority given to an attorney to settle a cause of action must be clear and unequivocal.
[2] An unauthorized compromise executed by an attorney, unless subsequently ratified, is of no effect and may be repudiated by the client.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a client's express authority given to an attorney to settle a cause of action must be 'clear and unequivocal.'”
Establishes the legal standard for attorney authority to settle claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeitzman hired attorney Berman to represent him in a personal injury claim against the appellees. During pretrial negotiations, the appellees' insuran…
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 Attorney'S Authority To Settle cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a dismissal entered on a Motion to Compel Settlement.
The appellant, Marc Weitzman, hired attorney Bernard Berman to represent him in a personal injury claim which Weitzman made against the appellees. During pretrial negotiations the appellees’ insurance company offered $1,750 to settle the claim. Attorney Berman indicated in correspondence to the insurance company that Weitz-man found this acceptable. Subsequently, however, Berman returned the settlement documents to the insurance company unsigned and notified the appellees that Weitzman had found another attorney. When later negotiations failed Weitzman’s second attorney filed a lawsuit against the appellees. In turn, the appellees filed a motion to compel settlement.
Weitzman challenged the settlement on grounds that he did not give Berman the authority to settle the case. In support thereof he filed an affidavit by his former attorney, Berman, which acknowledged that Weitzman had conditioned his acceptance of settlement on Weitzman’s wife’s consent. Nevertheless, the trial court found that the first attorney had the authority to settle the case and dismissed the action.
Because the record does not clearly show that attorney Berman was authorized to settle the case, we reverse the order granting the motion to compel and reverse the final judgment of dismissal. Jorgensen v. Grand Union Co., 490 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) explains that a client’s express authority given to an attorney to settle a cause of action must be “clear and unequivocal.” Further, it is well settled that “an unauthorized compromise executed by an attorney, unless subsequently ratified, is of no effect, and may be repudiated or ignored and treated as a nullity by the client on whose behalf it was executed.” 4 Fla. Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, section 135 (1978).
Caselaw indicates that courts have been very stringent in what they find to be a “clear and unequivocal” grant of authority. See Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (a dissolution settlement based solely upon a letter from the husband’s attorney to the wife’s attorney confirming the terms of a purported agreement was insufficient to demonstrate that the wife had ever ratified, authorized, or otherwise assented to the agreement); Vantage Broadcasting Co. v. WINT Radio, Inc., 476 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (attorney not specifically told by clients that he was authorized to settle for stipulated amount, but clients did not object when he discussed the amount due and did not tell him not to stipulate; nevertheless, appellate court reversed because not a clear and unequivocal grant of authority.)
In the instant case it appears that the first attorney, Berman, had only conditional authority to settle the case. Since it is the burden of the party seeking to compel the settlement (here the insurance com pany) to show that the attorney had authority to settle the case, the insurance company failed to meet its burden of proof. Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Sharick v. Se. Univ. OF THE Health Scis., Inc., 891 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…a settlement bears the burden of proving that an attorney has the clear and unequivocal authority to settle on the client’s behalf. See Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Serv. Corp., 326 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Weitzman v. Bergman, 555 So. 2d 448, 449-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (noting that “it is the burden of the party seeking to compel the settlement ... to show that the attorney had authority to settle the case”); Jorgensen v. Grand Union Co., 490 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“[t]he…
-
Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf BAY Land Holdings II, Ltd., 933 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…unequivocal authority to settle on the client’s behalf. Fivecoat v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 928 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Sharick v. Se. Univ. of the Health Sciences, Inc., 891 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Weitzman v. Bergman, 555 So. 2d 448, 449-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Jorgensen v. Grand Union Co., 490 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Vantage Broadcasting Co. v. WINT Radio, Inc., 476 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Contrary to Gulf Bay’s claim, the transcript of the hearing b…
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp. 2005-WMC1 v. Rios, 166 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…thority.” Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf Bay Land Holdings II, Ltd., 989 So. 2d 662, 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf Bay Land Holdings II, Ltd., 933 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Weitzman v. Bergman, 555 So. 2d 448, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). Here, Mr. Sanoba testified to his understanding that when he was dealing with Ms. Giasi he was “dealing directly with the bank and that the bank had approved this agreement.” However, he did not testify that he had any pe…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Vantage Broad. Co. v. Wint Radio, Inc., 476 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Jorgensen v. The Grand Union Co., 490 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)