MARY A. LESEKE, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA MARIE NUTARO AND SNAPPY CAR RENTAL, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Leseke appealed a trial court order enforcing a settlement agreement in a negligence action arising from an automobile-bicycle collision. The appellate court reversed, finding the settlement agreement unenforceable because it lacked mutuality of obligation and consideration.
The settlement agreement was unenforceable because it lacked mutuality of obligation and consideration. Dr. Kramer's report did not indicate an absence of problems at C5-6 and C6-7 as required by the agreement's terms, so Leseke was not obligated to accept the $40,000.
[1] A settlement agreement is unenforceable if it lacks mutual consideration.
[2] A court may re-assess the meaning and effect of a written agreement as a matter of law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The interpretation or construction of a contract is a matter of law, not one of fact, and an appellate court is not restricted in its ability to reassess the meaning and effect of a written agreement.”
Establishes the standard of review for contract interpretation on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeseke initiated a negligence action against Nutaro and Snappy Car Rental. Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement conditionin…
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 Nudum Pactum cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge.
Mary Leseke initiated a negligence action against Lisa Marie Nutaro and Snappy Car Rental as a result of an automobile-bicycle collision. Pursuant to an appropriate motion, the trial court ordered mediation. A mediation hearing was held and an agreement was reached which provided as follows:
The Plaintiff shall be examined the week of January 30, 1989 by Dr. Paul Kramer. If Dr. Kramer indicates the Plaintiff has a herniation of C5-6 and C6-7 the Defen dants agree to re-evaluate the case. If Dr. Kramer indicates no problems at C5-6 and C6-7 the Plaintiff will accept $40,000.00.
The results of Dr. Kramer’s examination of Leseke were expressed in a letter, the pertinent portions of which state:
With regard to her neck, the discomfort there is infrequent, that is 1-2 times per week, and is left low neck and radiates along both trapezius areas. She did not have neck pain prior to the automobile accident nor did she have thoracic or low back pain. She is aggravated by right rotation and also by reading long periods of time with her neck down....
To physical examination, she was alert, cooperative, a consistent historian and a very pleasant person. She demonstrates a normal range of motion of the neck to right and left rotation. She moves on and off the examining table with ease. To formal testing of her range of motion of her neck she actively does all ranges normally. There is no sign of cervical nerve root compression. The thoracic spine is tender to percussion over the spinous processes of T5-8. The lumbar spine has a normal range of motion and in fact is quite full....
Cervical radiculopathy, mild.
The interpretation or construction of a contract is a matter of law, not one of fact, and an appellate court is not restricted in its ability to reassess the meaning and effect of a written agreement. Folwell v. Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In our judgment, the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement which, we note in passing, is less than an exemplar of sound draftsmanship if a bilaterally binding contract were, indeed, anticipated.
In order for the trial court properly to enforce the settlement agreement, it had to determine whether Dr. Kramer indicated “no problems at C5-6 and C6-7.” It is evident from Dr. Kramer’s report that he did not indicate an absence of problems at the designated cervical levels. Thus, under our view of the relevant considerations arising from the settlement agreement and Dr. Kramer’s report, compelling Leseke to accept the $40,000.00 was mistaken.
Moreover, of equal, if not greater significance is the absence from the settlement agreement of mutual detriment or obligations. Leseke only was committed to a term of the agreement and Nutaro/Snap-py were free to take whatever evaluative action they might choose, including none, had Dr. Kramer indicated that Leseke had herniated discs at C5-6 and C6-7. In sum, the settlement agreement presents a classic example of a nudum pactum, an agreement wholly lacking in consideration. See Freitag v. Lakes of Carriage Hills, Inc., 467 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we reverse, the trial court’s order is vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal OAK Landing Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Pelletier, 620 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992). See also Coleman v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 517 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1988) (the question of the extent of coverage under an insurance policy is a question of law and is therefore subject to plenary review); Leseke v. Nutaro, 567 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (the interpretation or construction of a contract is a matter of law, not one of fact, and an appellate court is not restricted in its ability to interpret a written agreement). We find that the trial court misconstrued the Decl…
-
Angell v. DON Jones Ins. Agency Inc., 620 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…of the trial court. Shadow West Apartments, Ltd. v. State, Dep't of Transp., 498 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Folwell v. Bernard, By and Through Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1986); Leseke v. Nutaro, 567 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We, therefore, reverse the summary judgment for appellee. On remand, appellant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted and judgment entered accordingly. Reversed and remanded with instructions. RYDER, A.C.J., and PATT…
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. City OF Casselberry, 793 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)….. ” Here, however, the Court is asked to review the trial court’s interpretation of a contract which is a matter of law. See Royal Oak Landing Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Pelletier, 620 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Leseke v. Nutaro, 567 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (the interpretation or construction of a contract is a matter of law, not one of fact, and an appellate court is not restricted in its ability to interpret a written agreement). A decision construing a contract presents an issue…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Folwell v. Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Freitag v. Lakes OF Carriage Hills, Inc., 467 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)