THE CADLE COMPANY, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARNOLD SCHECTER AND EDITH SCHECTER, 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.
The Cadle Company appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to enforce a court-approved stipulation and settlement agreement with the Schecters. The appellate court reversed, holding that Cadle, as the assignee of the agreement, had standing and that the Schecters' default was established by affidavit, requiring enforcement of the settlement agreement.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to enforce. Cadle, as the assignee of the settlement agreement, had standing, and the Schecters' default was established through Cadle's affidavit and the Schecters' own admission of a balance due. Settlement agreements are enforceable contracts and will be enforced whenever possible.
[1] A court that retains jurisdiction to enforce a stipulation and settlement agreement is in a position to provide an efficient forum for enforcement.
[2] Settlement agreements are interpreted and governed by ordinary rules of contract.
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“Settlements are like any other type of contract and therefore are interpreted and governed by ordinary rules of contract. Additionally, settlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible.”
Establishes the legal principle governing the interpretation and enforcement of settlement agreements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArnold and Edith Schecter entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement with a bank requiring monthly payments, consenting to judgment upon fili…
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 Motion To Enforce cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, The Cadle Company, Inc. (Ca-dle), appeals the denial of its motion to enforce a court-approved stipulation and settlement agreement. We reverse.
Appellees, Arnold and Edith Schecter, entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement with a bank. The pertinent provisions of this agreement were that: 1) the Schecters were to make monthly payments on their indebtedness; 2) if the Schecters’ payments were not timely made, then they consented to judgment against them upon the filing of an affidavit of indebtedness establishing a default; and, 3) the agreement could be assigned. In 1986, the trial court approved the agreement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
Cadle, the assignee of this agreement, filed its motion to substitute Cadle as plaintiff and for entry of final judgment. Cadle also filed its affidavit demonstrating the Schecters’ indebtedness and default under the agreement. The trial court substituted Cadle as plaintiff, but referred the matter of final judgment to a general master. Ultimately, the trial court denied the motion to enforce the agreement finding:
... that the plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof in demonstrating that he had standing and that the defendants are in default ...
We find, however, that the trial court was incorrect. First, the trial court previously substituted Cadle as plaintiff recognizing Cadle as the assignee of this settlement agreement. Second, Cadle filed an affidavit of its account officer stating that the Schecters were in default in their monthly payments. Also, the Schecters even admitted a balance due since 1987. Settlements are like any other type of contract and therefore are interpreted and governed by ordinary rules of contract. Additionally, settlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1985).
Here, the trial court, having retained jurisdiction over this stipulation and settlement agreement, was in the perfect position to provide an efficient free-flowing adjudicative forum to enforce the agreement. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order enforcing the stipulation and settlement agreement in favor of Cadle, including attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided for in the agreement.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commercial Cap. Res., LLC v. Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…g to determine the intention of the parties. We agree. Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and are therefore, interpreted and governed by contract law. Barone v. Rogers, 930 So. 2d 761, 763-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Cadle Co. v. Schecter, 602 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Construction of contractual terms is a question of law, which we review de novo, “provided that the language is clear and unambiguous and free of conflicting inferences.” Miller v. Kase, 789 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2…
-
Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg, 34 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…f review, I must affirm. “Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and are therefore, interpreted and governed by contract law.” Comm’l Capital Res., LLC v. Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Cadle Co. v. Schecter, 602 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). “Where a contract is susceptible to two different interpretations, each one of which is reasonably inferred from the terms of the contract, the agreement is ambiguous.” Id. (citing Miller v. Kase, 789 So. 2d 1095, 1097-98 (…
-
MUÑOZ Hnos, S.A. v. Editorial Televisa Int'l, S.A., 121 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…similarly subject to de novo review. Fla. Power Corp. v. City of Casselberry, 793 So. 2d 1174, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Because a settlement agreement is contractual in nature, it is interpreted and governed by contract law. Cadle Co. v. Schecter, 602 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, because this appeal challenges entry of summary judgment in favor of Televisa and revolves around the interpretation of the Agreement between Televisa and Muñoz, our standard of review is de novo. We first disp…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robbie v. City OF Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985)