ROBERT H. LICKERT, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. PIKE, 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 a settlement agreement was not enforceable because the offeree made material changes and the offeror never communicated acceptance of the amended agreement.
[1] Settlement agreements are construed according to the rules governing contracts.
[2] An acceptance of an offer must contain an assent to the same matters contained in the offer.
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 intelligencePike filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, but the agreement attached lacked his signature and contained handwritten changes. Liekert argu…
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 Counteroffer cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Robert H. Liekert appeals a final judgment enforcing a settlement agreement with Richard A. Pike. We conclude that the trial court erred in enforcing the agreement and reverse.
Pike filed a motion to compel enforcement of settlement and attached the alleged settlement agreement. The alleged settlement agreement attached to Pike’s motion does not have Pike’s signature on it. There are handwritten changes on the agreement and there is no date on the top of the agreement indicating when the agreement was entered. Liekert argues that Pike sent him the agreement, which had not been signed by Pike, and that he made handwritten changes to the agreement, signed the agreement, and sent the agreement back to Pike. Thereafter, he was never notified regarding whether Pike accepted his changes to the agreement. The trial court found that the settlement agreement attached to Pike’s motion was an enforceable agreement. We disagree.
Settlement agreements are construed according to the rules governing contracts. See Long Term Management, Inc. v. University Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 704 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “An acceptance must contain an assent to the same matters contained in the offer.” Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See Sullivan v. Economic Research Properties, 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (holding that an acceptance must be identical to the terms of the offer to result in a binding contract). In addition, an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. See Kendel v. Pontious, 261 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1972); Mintzberg, 390 So. 2d 759.
Here, Liekert did not accept the terms of Pike’s proposed settlement agreement. He made changes to the agreement and sent it back to Pike. Because Pike never communicated his acceptance of the amended settlement agreement to Liekert and, in fact, never signed the settlement agreement upon which the trial court relied, the agreement was not enforceable.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solanje Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…al, identical with the terms of the offer, and in the mode, at the place, and within the time expressly or impliedly stated within the offer. Thus, ‘[an] acceptance must contain an assent to the same matters contained in the offer.’ Lickert v. Pike, 736 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(citing Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). Here, there was no evidence of acceptance on two crucial terms. First, plaintiff did not agree to the indemnification language in the release defendant presented…
-
Giovo v. McDONALD, 791 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…d unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer. Ribich v. Evergreen Sales & Serv., Inc., 784 So. 2d 1201(Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In other words, an acceptance must contain an assent to the same matters contained in the offer. Lickert v. Pike, 736 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Mintzberg v. Golestaneh, 390 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). The party seeking judgment based on a settlement has the burden to prove assent by the opposing party and must establish that there was a meeting of the minds or…
-
Sorocka v. Severe, 858 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ovo v. McDonald, 791 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Ribich v. Evergreen Sales & Serv., Inc., 784 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In other words, an acceptance must contain an assent to the same matters contained in the offer. See Lickert v. Pike, 736 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See also Mejer-Kondla v. Douglas Centre, Inc., 701 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (reversing because the trial court improperly found a settlement agreement when there remained material differences regarding the essential elements…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Long Term Mgmt., Inc. v. Univ. Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 704 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Kendel v. Pontious, 261 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1972)
- Sullivan v. Econ. Research Props., 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Kartee v. Manchero, 390 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)