ANDREW L. STEMPEL, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON W. STEMPEL, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court upholds the trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement reached during mediation, rejecting the husband's claim that his assent was merely conditional pending a more formal agreement. The court finds that the parties reached a binding settlement despite the minimal nature of the mediation agreement.
The mediation agreement was a binding, enforceable settlement that the trial court properly incorporated into the final judgment. The trial court did not err in finding that a full settlement had been reached and rejecting the husband's claim that his assent was conditional.
[1] A mediation agreement, even if consisting of "bare bones" terms, may be enforceable as a full settlement if the trial court finds that a complete agreement was reached.
[2] A trial court may incorporate ministerial terms or terms within its discretion into a final judgment of dissolution, even if not explicitly detailed in the initial mediat…
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“The agreement reached at mediation can be termed the "barest" of bare bones agreements.”
Establishes the minimal and informal nature of the mediation settlement agreement using abbreviations and shorthand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties reached an agreement during mediation in a dissolution case, with the wife's attorney using abbreviations to designate provisions such as …
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 Child Support Duration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review a final judgment of dissolution based upon what the wife claimed was an agreement made in mediation. The husband claimed that the agreement at mediation was to be reduced to a more formal agreement which the parties were unable to accomplish. We affirm.
The agreement reached at mediation can be termed the “barest” of bare bones agreements. The wife’s attorney used initials to designate most provisions, such as “SPR” for shared parental responsibility, “CS” for child support and the like. It appears that the “bare bones” terms were agreed to, and the final judgment places those terms in complete sentences. The final judgment necessarily contains language that is not in the mediation agreement, but the additional terms are either terms whose insertion was purely ministerial (such as the precise wording of the mutual restraining order) or terms on which the trial court may exercise its discretion regardless of the agreement of the parties (such as payment of child support through the court registry). The trial court found that a full settlement had been reached and rejected the husband’s contention that his assent at mediation was merely conditional.
The husband does not raise a meritorious challenge to any specific term in the final judgment. He argues that it does not specify the duration of the child support and life insurance obligations, but Florida law supplies the minimum duration absent agreement by the parties to extend the obligations for a longer period. The husband also objects to the lack of a release provision, but this does not render the parties’ agreement unenforceable.
In sum, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s determination that the mediation agreement should be enforced. The trial court acted within its discretion in incorporating into its final judgment the terms upon which the parties had agreed. While the husband apparently claims other terms should have been included, these were not part of the agreement and failure to agree to them does not vitiate the settlement agreement or the final judgment.
' WARNER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de Cespedes v. Laida Bolanos, 711 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ding if the parties agree on the essential terms and seriously understand and intend the agreement to be binding on them.” Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 302 So. 2d 404, 408 (Fla. 1974); see also Stempel v. Stempel, 633 So. 2d 26, 26-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (mediation agreement enforceable even though it was a mere bare bones agreement and the former husband urged that other terms should have been included); Innkeepers Int'; Inc. v. McCoy Motels, Ltd., 324 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fl…
-
Richard R. Jordan, M.D. v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 656 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…future more specific agreement will be entered into later, or that it expresses the idea that something is left to a future agreement and it is an agreement to agree, does not affect the enforceability of the original agreement); Stempel v. Stempel, 633 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DC A) (trial courts can enforce a “barest” bare bones agreement to which the parties have agreed), cause dismissed, 639 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1994). Further, because the parties substantially complied with the mediation rules, the absence of cou…