SPECIAL'S TRADING COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND STAR BABY, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER CORPORATION, A FLORIDA 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.
Special's Trading Company and Star Baby, Inc. appealed a final judgment entered against them without notice. The court reversed, holding that while a special release signed only by the appellee purported to allow immediate entry of judgment upon payment default, the appellants did not sign that document and were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment could be entered against them.
The special release, being signed only by appellee and not by appellants, is not binding on appellants. Appellants are entitled to notice of the motion for final judgment and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to its entry, as required by due process, regardless of any alleged agreement to waive those rights. The final judgment is reversed.
[1] A final judgment entered without notice to a party may be reversed, particularly when the party has not waived their right to notice.
[2] A settlement agreement does not bind a party to terms contained in a separate release document to which they are not a signatory.
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“Although the special release refers to the right to an immediate judgment upon default, the appellants did not sign that document and it is not binding upon them.”
Establishes that an unsigned document cannot bind parties who did not agree to its terms, central to the court's reasoning.
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 settled a breach of contract dispute through a settlement agreement signed by both parties. The appellee then executed a special release (…
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 Notice Of Entry Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
The court entered a final judgment in this case without notice to the appellants. Although it based the final judgment on a “special release” which provided for an immediate entry of a final judgment after default of payments, we hold that the release did not permit the entry of a default final judgment. We therefore reverse.
Appellee filed a complaint for damages against the appellants for a breach of contract. Subsequently, the parties signed a settlement agreement which provided that appellants would make payments to the appellee to settle the suit. The appellee then executed a special release which released all of appellee’s claims against the appellants in consideration of the payments. It further provided:
If STC and/or SBI [appellants] default as to any payment, whether by failure to make same, by check for insufficient funds, or otherwise, this Special Release shall be null and void, and ICC [appellee] shall be entitled to the immediate entry of a Final Judgment in its favor against STC and SBI, jointly and severally, for the total amount remaining due and owing plus interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees necessary to obtaining said Final Judgment. In the event thereof, STC and SBI expressly agree to waive all defenses to nonpayment and default.
While both parties signed the settlement agreement, the special release bears the appellee’s signature only, and the foregoing terms were not a part of the settlement agreement.
When the appellants failed to make a payment, the appellee filed a motion for entry of final judgment against the appellants in the trial court, attaching the settlement agreement, the special release, and an affidavit of nonpayment. In its final judgment, the court found that the appellants had breached the settlement agreement, and pursuant to the special release, the breach entitled the appel-lee to “immediate entry of a Final Judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally as a result of the above-stated defaults.” The court entered final judgment without notice to the appellants.
The settlement agreement did not permit immediate entry of a final judgment without notice. Although the special release refers to the right to an immediate judgment upon default, the appellants did not sign that document and it is not binding upon them.
The appellants are entitled to notice of the entry of the final judgment. They must have the opportunity to be heard in opposition to its entry, where they might contest the fact of nonpayment of the obligation, for instance. Without an opportunity to be heard, the appellants were deprived of their due process rights. While appellee claims that the appellants were on notice that a final judgment would be requested, general notice that a hearing might be held is not adequate to advise a party that a hearing has been scheduled on the matter so that the party may appear and address the court.
The appellants signed no document waiving their right to notice of the application for a final judgment. As no notice was furnished, the final judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Cap. Network & Robert Schlein v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…Clearly, obtaining a final judgment is a proceeding which is accorded finality. Thus, the court erred in not affording Appellants a hearing. The procedure followed here was recently condemned in Special’s Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 701 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). REVERSED. GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
DeCHELLIS v. DeCHELLIS, 925 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…(1950); see also Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.923. General notice that a hearing might be held is not adequate to advise parties that a hearing has been scheduled so the parties may appear and address the court. Special’s Trading Co. v. Int’l Consumer Corp., 701 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Parties are entitled to notice of entry of a final judgment so they have an opportunity to be heard in opposition to its entry. Without an opportunity to be heard, a party is deprived of his due process rights. Id. at 423. Beca…
-
Sarasota Est. & Jewelry Buyers, Inc. v. Kane, 158 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…gainst them. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings as to these parties. See Am. Capital Network v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Spec [*748] ial’s Trading Co. v. Int’l Consumer Corp., 701 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). We affirm the remaining issue without comment. Affirmed in part and reversed in part as to Haiel and Abed Suwaity and ARMS International Corp.; affirmed as to Sarasota Estate and Jewelry Buyers, Inc. CASANUEVA and CRENSHAW,…