J. SQUARE ENTERPRISES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROLF BERGMANN, 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.
J. Square Enterprises appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement with Rolf Bergmann, challenging the lower court's finding of breach and the damages awarded. The appellate court partially affirmed and partially reversed, finding some damages calculations were erroneous and that attorney's fees were awarded without a proper hearing on reasonableness.
The court affirmed the finding of breach but reversed and remanded on damages issues: the $100/day penalty applied only until December 1, 1994 (totaling $2,600 plus prejudgment interest), the $10,000 award was erroneous absent a mortgage on the parcel, and attorney's fees must be reconsidered with a hearing on reasonableness.
[1] A settlement agreement is enforceable when supported by substantial competent evidence of a breach.
[2] A daily penalty for failure to complete a septic system and drainfield under a settlement agreement is limited to the period specified in the agreement.
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“under the clear terms of the agreement, the $100.00 per day award for appellant's failure to complete the septic system and drainfield applied until December 1, 1994 only”
Establishes that the liquidated damages provision had an express termination date, limiting the total recovery.
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 entered into a settlement agreement that required appellant to complete a septic system and drainfield. The agreement contained provisions…
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 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.
We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the lower court’s finding that appellant breached the settlement agreement was not supported by substantial competent evidence but we do find merit in certain of the appellant’s attacks on the various elements of damage awarded in the final judgment.
First, we decide that under the clear terms of the agreement, the $100.00 per day award for appellant’s failure to complete the septic system and drainfield applied until December 1, 1994 only. Given the date of execution of the agreement, the amount due is $2,600, plus prejudgment interest due from December 1, 1994. We also conclude that the $10,-000 award made under paragraph 5 of the agreement was error because the agreement calls for this amount of increase in the settlement if a mortgage remained on the small parcel at the time of its conveyance to appel-lee. If other encumbrances remained, appel-lee would be limited to his actual damages for breach of the covenant. In either event, the brief delay in clearing the encumbrance was not material in light of appellee’s failure to release the lis pendens as required.
Finally, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees because, after the determination on the merits was made, the lower court failed to conduct a hearing on the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and there is no suggestion in the record that the right to a hearing was waived by appellant. On remand, appellant is entitled to a hearing on the amount of reasonable fees it must pay arising out of the proceedings below and on appeal. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.