ISABEL MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEE.; METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT, V. ISABEL MORALES, 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.
This consolidated appeal involves a settlement agreement dispute between Metropolitan Dade County and Isabel Morales regarding environmental violations on Morales' property. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Morales breached the settlement agreement but reversed and remanded the penalty determination, finding the $1.00 penalty assessed was grossly inadequate under the agreement's explicit $100-per-day provision.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Morales materially breached the settlement agreement but reversed the penalty determination. The court held that the settlement agreement must be interpreted according to its terms and underlying intent, requiring recalculation of the daily penalty in accordance with the $100-per-day provision upon remand.
[1] A trial court order modifying a prior judgment is effective when entered and no appeal is taken from it, even if the modification was sought under a rule allowing for rel…
[2] A party's failure to appeal an order modifying a prior judgment renders the modified judgment the operative one for subsequent proceedings.
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“In the event the Defendant fails to comply with any of the above time schedules or provisions, the Defendant will automatically be liable for a penalty of $100.00 per day until the Defendant complies with the above provisions.”
The explicit penalty provision of the settlement agreement that governed the amount due for noncompliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsabel Morales entered into a settlement agreement with Metropolitan Dade County to resolve environmental violations on her property. The agreement re…
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 Amendment Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals Metropolitan Dade County and Isabel Morales each challenge an order enforcing settlement agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We have initially considered the question of whether the trial court’s order dated June 4, 1991 was effective to amend the July 7, 1989 order approving settlement agreement, so as to extend the period of retention of jurisdiction. The recitations contained in the order of June 4, 1991 indicate that the trial court proceeded under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, and concluded that proper grounds existed to modify the July, 1989 order. At the 1991 hearing both parties were represented by counsel. The recitations in the order indicate that there was no objection to this procedure. In any event, no appeal was taken after entry of the 1991 order which modified the earlier judgment. Consequently, we conclude that the parties are proceeding properly under the modified judgment.
By order dated November 1,1993, the trial court found after an evidentiary hearing that Ms. Morales had not complied with material terms of her settlement agreement with Dade County regarding certain environmental violations. After careful consideration of Ms. Morales’ arguments, we find no error of law. Consequently, as to Ms. Morales’ appeal, we affirm.
Dade County has appealed, contending that the penalty assessed by the trial court is insufficient. This point has merit.
The parties’ settlement agreement listed several steps which Ms. Morales was required to complete in order to come into compliance with the environmental regulations applicable to her property. Paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement said, “In the event the Defendant fails to comply with any of the above time schedules or provisions, the Defendant will automatically be liable for a penalty of $100.00 per day until the Defendant complies with the above provisions.” After the trial court found Ms. Morales to be in violation, the court entered a penalty of $1.00 against Ms. Morales, although Paragraph 8 of the settlement agreement called for a larger amount.
The settlement agreement in this case was entered into in order to resolve environmental violations existing on Ms. Morales’ property. We agree with the County that the agreement must be interpreted in accordance with its terms and underlying intent. See BAC Int’l Credit Corp. v. Macia, 626 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). It is clear that Ms. Morales took a number of the steps which were called for by the agreement. However, at the evidentiary hearing below the trial court concluded that Ms. Morales had not completed her obligations under the agreement and was in substantial noncompliance. There must be a new hearing to determine the point at which Ms. Morales should be deemed to have been in material noncompliance with the settlement agreement. The trial court should then recalculate the penalty.
In summary, the order is reversed insofar as it assesses a $1.00 penalty, and remanded for recalculation of the daily penalty. The order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Philip Morris Inc. v. French, 897 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…nale, violated the controlling rules of contract law. We disagree. Where, as here, you have a contract that is ambiguous, a court is required to use a construction that best expresses the intention of the parties. See Morales v. Metro. Dade County, 652 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that settlement agreement must be “interpreted in accordance with its terms and underlying [*489] intent.”). See also Transport Rental Sys., Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 129 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (“The real inte…
-
SUN Microsystems OF Cal., Inc. v. Eng'g & Mfg. Sys., 682 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…2d 1384 (Fla.1985); American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Marrod, Inc., 637 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). A settlement agreement must be interpreted in accordance with its terms and underlying intent. See Morales v. Metropolitan Dade County, 652 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 662 So. 2d 343 (Fla.1995). In the instant case, the provision of the settlement agreement giving the Dade County Circuit Court continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of the agreement was clear and la…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Edol Corp., 661 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…d to comply with the provisions of the agreed order and the settlement agreement, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order declining to enforce the daily penalties provision of the settlement agreement. Morales v. Metropolitan Dade County, 652 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand this [*423] cause for an award of daily penalties pursuant to the settlement agreement and for an evidentiary hearing to determine the date upon which Edol should be deemed to be in material noncomplia…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- BAC Int'l Credit Corp. v. MacIa, 626 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)