SHELDON GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE HOLSTEIN, A/K/A TED HOLSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND THEODORE HOLSTEIN, AS GENERAL PARTNER OF HTF HOTEL PROPERTIES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
A real estate broker failed to enforce a settlement agreement because counsel lacked authority to bind the client to a due-on-sale clause that the client had not agreed to.
A settlement agreement cannot be enforced when counsel negotiated terms without clear authorization from the client to agree to those specific terms.
[1] A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement must prove that opposing counsel was unequivocally authorized by the client to agree to all material terms of the settle…
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 intelligenceA real estate broker sought to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a commission dispute. Counsel for both parties dictated settlement terms into …
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 Real Estate Transactions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a real estate broker, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the seller of certain real property. Counsel for the parties had been negotiating to settle a dispute involving the commission which the real estate broker claimed. The parties’ counsel dictated the terms into the record at a hearing before the court; however, it was made clear at that hearing that the appellee, who was not there, had not yet had the opportunity to discuss all of the details with his counsel. When the appellee, who was a resident of California, received the agreement he refused to agree to the due-on-sale clause which was in the settlement agreement since it was to be secured by real estate. The broker insisted on that term being part of the settlement and moved to enforce the settlement under the terms discussed by counsel at the hearing.
The trial court refused to enforce the settlement because of the failure of the parties to agree on the due-on-sale clause. Since the broker had the burden of proving the establishment of the settlement agreement and did not unequivocally show that counsel was authorized by the client to agree to the due-on-sale clause, the trial court was correct in denying enforcement. Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sosnick v. Danette McMANUS, 815 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…the same. A [*763] party attempting to enforce a settlement bears the burden of showing that the attorney proposing the settlement had the clear and unequivocal authority from his client to do so. See also Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Holstein, 629 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Cibula v. Ross, 597 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Weitzman v. Bergman, 555 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Jorgensen v. Grand Union Co., 490 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 198…
Authorities Cited
- Renita Penfield Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)