MAIN STREET INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, GEORGE SAHAGIAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND BURTON MOSS, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEES
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.
A party that accepts the benefits of a settlement agreement, even when ordered to receive them by the court, is estopped from appealing that agreement.
Main Street Industries accepted settlement proceeds ordered by the trial court in a dispute with K-Mart Corporation. Main Street then appealed the tri…
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 Acceptance Of Benefits Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Main Street Industries, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order granting K-Mart Corporation’s emergency motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement. K-Mart argues that Main Street forfeited its right to appeal by accepting the benefits of the settlement. We agree.
“[Wjhen a party recovers a judgment and accepts the benefits thereof, he is, on appeal, estopped to seek a reversal of that judgment.” Dance v. Tatum, 629 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla.1993). We are not persuaded by Main Street’s argument that the acceptance of benefits doctrine does not apply because the trial court ordered K-Mart to pay the settlement proceeds. Main Street could have requested payment to be directed to the court registry. Alternatively, Main Street could have obtained a stay by posting a bond as directed by the trial court. Because remedies were available, but it instead accepted the proceeds of the settlement, Main Street cannot now appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.1
DELL, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ. concur. . In case number 97-2578, Main Street also appeals the order granting Burton Moss' motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Although El-Mart moved to dismiss this appeal for failure to obtain the necessary transcripts, it is rendered moot after the dismissal of the main appeal due to Main Street’s acceptance of the settlement proceeds. Dance v. Tatum, 629 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavez v. Bonnie Tile Corp. & Summit Holdings, 959 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…the JCC hold the settlement checks pending the outcome of this appeal. Because claimant failed to pursue any alternative remedy and instead accepted the proceeds of the settlement, he cannot now appeal. See Main Street Indus., Inc. v. K-Mart Corp., 710 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). This appeal is hereby DISMISSED as moot. WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dance v. Tatum, 629 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1993)