METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDOL CORPORATION, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement and finding of noncompliance by Edol Corporation, but reversed the trial court's refusal to enforce daily penalties and remanded for calculation of penalties and determination of the noncompliance date.
A trial court has jurisdiction to enforce parties' agreed orders and court-approved settlement agreements, and must enforce penalty provisions when a party fails to comply with the agreement's terms.
[1] A trial court has jurisdiction to enforce parties' agreed orders and court-approved settlement agreements, and penalty provisions must be enforced upon a finding of mater…
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 intelligenceMetropolitan Dade County and Edol Corporation entered into a court-approved settlement agreement containing a daily penalties provision. Edol failed t…
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 Jurisdiction Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreed order and the court-approved settlement agreement. BAC Int'l Credit Corp. v. Macia, 626 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cadle Co. v. Schecter, 602 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Buckley Towers Condominium v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), appeal dismissed, 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.), and appeal dismissed, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s entry of a non-final order enforcing the parties’ agreed order and court-approved settlement agreement and finding that the defendant, Edol Corporation [Edol], had failed to comply with the provisions of the agreed order and the settlement agreement.
However, based on the trial court’s findings that Edol failed 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 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 noncompliance with the settlement agreement. Morales, 652 So. 2d at 926.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SUN Microsystems OF Cal., Inc. v. Eng'g & Mfg. Sys., 682 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…on to dismiss the action on grounds of' forum non conveniens, and remand this action to the trial court so that it may resolve the portions of the settlement agreement which are in dispute between the parties. Metropolitan Dade County v. Edol Corp., 661 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Morales. Reversed and remanded. . The settlement agreement states in pertinent part: "This court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this settlement and the defendants hereby consent to the court's cont…
-
Orchid Island Props., Inc. v. W.G. Mills, 889 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ion to enforce oral settlement agreement); River City Wholesale Florist, Ltd. v. Equiflor Corp., 864 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (appeal involving an order denying a motion to enforce a stipulation for settlement); Metro. Dade County v. Edol Corp., 661 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Delta Brands, Inc. v. [*144] Hesco Sales, Inc., 500 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). For example, in Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we con…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fonte, 683 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…re not now be permitted to repudiate it. Because there is also no question of their violation of the agreement or the consequences of the breach, the trial court was required to enter judgment accordingly. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Edol Corp., 661 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(enforeing similar agreement); Morales v. Metropolitan Dade County, 652 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(same), review denied, 662 So. 2d 343 (Fla.1995). We therefore reverse the order under review with directions to increase the amou…
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
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- BAC Int'l Credit Corp. v. MacIa, 626 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Morales v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 652 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- The Cadle Co., Inc. v. Schecter, 602 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)