DAVID CARLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREE CARLSON, 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 approval of the special master's findings regarding the settlement agreement interpretation. The court dismissed the appeal regarding attorney's fees as not ripe.
The appeal concerned a trial court's order approving a special master's findings on the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The court had previo…
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 Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
This is a non-final appeal from a trial court’s order that approved the findings of a special master. Appellee raises two points on appeal.
The first point on appeal involves the trial court’s interpretation of a settlement agreement reached during mediation. We had previously determined that the agreement was ambiguous and reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing where each side could offer extrinsic evidence on the correct interpretation of the agreement. See Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The trial court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement was based on the special master’s detailed findings of fact. As this court noted in Reece v. Reece, 449 So. 2d 1295, 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), “the role of the trial court in reviewing the findings and determinations of the master are similar to those of the appellate court in reviewing a trial court’s findings and determinations.” Because the special master’s findings were supported by substantial competent evidence, the trial court properly accepted those findings. See Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
As to the second point on appeal — entitlement to attorney’s fees — we decline to exercise our jurisdiction because the amount of attorney’s fees has not been determined and thus the issue is not ripe for our review. See Ritchie v. Ritchie, 687 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Unlike Ritchie and eases cited in Ritchie, such as Easley, McCaleb & Stallings, Ltd. v. Gibbons, 667 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), it has not been brought to our attention that the issue of entitlement has been determined subsequent to the filing of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal directed to entitlement.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
STONE, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 736 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ter made comprehensive findings of fact and concluded that because of the substantial change of circumstances, the best interest of the child would be served by changing custody from the mother to the father. STANDARD OF REVIEW Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332, 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), holds that the appropriate standard of review from a master’s report is a limited review. Instead of comparing the master with an arbitrator, however, it compares the role of the reviewing trial judge with that of an appel…
-
Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 719 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Former husband David Carlson challenges an order awarding former wife attorney’s fees in proceedings involving the enforcement and interpretation of a settlement agreement. Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We reverse the fee award. In Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997) the supreme court explained that the financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to b…
-
Miller v. Miller, 801 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…out further discussion. We, however, decline to exercise our jurisdiction as to the former wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees because the judgment does not set the amount of fees and thus, the issue is not ripe for our review. Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332, 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ritchie v. Ritchie, 687 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal directed to entitlement. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Reece v. Reece, 449 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Easley v. Gibbons, 667 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ritchie v. Ritchie, 687 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)