M & C ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A CAMELLIA MOTELS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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 held that the trial court erred by refusing to enforce a settlement agreement provision reserving jurisdiction for pool damages.
[1] Parties to a settlement agreement are bound by its terms, which merge their rights and duties into the agreement.
[2] A trial court must enforce a settlement agreement, even if the subject matter of the agreement would not otherwise be cognizable in the underlying litigation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties settled an eminent domain proceeding via mediation, agreeing that the trial court would reserve jurisdiction to assess pool damages caused…
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 Stipulated Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from an eminent domain proceeding that was settled through mediation. A stipulated final judgment was entered that incorporated the settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that the trial court would “reserve jurisdiction to assess any damage to pool caused by construction.” After the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) commenced construction, M & C Associates (“the owner”) filed a motion seeking to enforce this provision of the final judgment. The trial court struck the owner’s motion on the basis that construction damages are not recoverable in an eminent domain proceeding and, therefore, the trial court could not reserve jurisdiction to address such a claim. We reverse because the trial court erred by failing to adhere to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.
When the parties entered into the settlement agreement, their rights and duties merged into that agreement and its provisions became binding on the parties and the trial court. See J. Allen, Inc. v. Castle Floor Covering, Inc., 543 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The fact that construction damages are not generally recoverable as severance damages is not a defense to enforcement of the settlement agreement. See 10 Fla. Jur.2d Compromise, Accord and Release § 12 (1979). There is no requirement that the terms of a settlement agreement be confined to issues cognizable in the litigation giving rise to the dispute. In fact, cases are often settled precisely because the parties agree to assume obligations or confer rights that a jury or the trial court would be unable to reach.
In this eminent domain proceeding, it is undisputed that DOT agreed that the owner would receive compensation for any damages to its pool caused by construction, and the final judgment which the owner sought to enforce so provided. Because the parties and the trial court were bound by the agreement, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address the owner’s pool damage claim.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eagle FL VI SPE, LLC v. T & A Fam. P'ship, Ltd., 177 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…74, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “When the parties entered into the settlement agreement, their rights and duties merged into that agreement and its provisions became binding on the parties and the trial court.” M & C Assocs. v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 682 So. 2d 640, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). “In order to obtain relief from a stipulation, a party must make a reasonable motion to withdraw the stipulation supported by an affidavit showing good cause.” Henrion v. New Era Realty IV, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1295, 1298 (Fla.…
-
Peralta v. Peralta Food, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2007)…J. Allen, Inc. v. Castle Floor Covering, Inc., 543 So.2d 249, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The settlement agreement’s provisions, therefore, become binding on the parties and this Court. E.g., M & C Assocs. v. State of Fla. Dept. of Transp., 682 So.2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Consequently, this Court—no matter how sympathetic it is to Maximo’s unfortunate circumstance and regardless of the merits of Maximo’s defenses to the default judgment or chance of success on appeal—cannot reopen the matter now t…
Authorities Cited
- J. Allen, Inc. v. Castle Floor Covering, Inc., 543 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)