AMBER PERRIN,

v.

DE SOLEIL SOUTH BEACH ASSOCIATION INC., ETC.,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fratangelo v. Coosemans, 264 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (order enforcing settlement based on nonjury finding on disputed evidence is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because lower court is in best position to evaluate and weigh testimony and evidence based upon its observation of bearing, demeanor, and credibility of witnesses) (citing Hamilton v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 48 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)); Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (execution of settlement documents is not condition precedent to settlement agreement but mere procedural formality); Nichols v. Martell, 612 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Don L. Tullis & Assocs., Inc. v. Benge, 473 So. 2d 1384, 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (explaining that “[t]o be enforced, the [settlement] agreement must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable on every essential element”); Rushing v. Garrett, 375 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (“[A]pparent authority may arise when the actions of the principal, reasonably interpreted, cause a third person to believe in good faith that the principal consents to the acts of the agent.”).