MARINA FUNDING GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PS MARINAS 3, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The court held that an agreement announced in open court is enforceable without an evidentiary hearing, and that Marina's remaining arguments were without merit.
The parties announced in open court that a settlement agreement had been reached. Marina later sought a continuance and challenged the agreement's spe…
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 Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marina Funding Group, Inc. (hereinafter Marina), appeals two orders from the trial court. The first order appealed from is an Order Maintaining the Status Quo Ante and Providing Further Relief, which was given after Marina asked for a continuance of a hearing arising from PS Marinas 3’s (hereinafter PS3) Motion to Enforce Settlement and for Contempt. The second order appealed from is an Order to Enforce Settlement Agreement, which was entered into without an evidentiary hearing.
With regards to the Order to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the record is clear that on November 17, 1998, the parties, appearing in open court, unequivocally asserted that -a settlement agreement had been reached. An agreement announced in open court is an enforceable settlement agreement. See Dowie v. Dowie, 668 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Furthermore, when both parties represent that an agreement has been reached, and the agreement was read in open court without objection from either party, there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing as to the existence of a settlement. See Murchison v. Grand Cypress Hotel Corp., 18 F. 3d 1483, 1487 (11th Cir.1994).
We find Marina’s remaining arguments, regarding the specificity of the agreement and its enforceability in Georgia (as required by the agreement), to be without merit. Therefore, the Order to Enforce Settlement Agreement is affirmed. We need not rule on the Order Maintaining Status Quo Ante and Providing Further Relief, as our affirmance of the Order to Enforce Settlement Agreement renders the matter moot.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PS Marinas 3 v. Marina Funding Grp., Inc., 889 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…trial court’s finding contained in its rule 1.540 order that the Marathon Court property indeed constituted part of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, and also affirm MFG’s cross-appeal. Affirmed. . See Marina Funding Group, Inc. v. PS Marinas 3, 747 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). . See Marina Funding Group, Inc. v. PS Marina 3, 783 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).…
-
Millan v. State, 833 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bertolotti v. State, 565 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1990); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129(Fla.1986); Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1975); Mendez v. State, 747 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also § 90.803(23), Fla. Stat. (1999).…
-
Keaton v. State, 279 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Budd v. State, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Coney v. State, 833 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Mendez v. State, 747 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). KHOUZAM, C.J., and SLEET and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dowie v. Dowie, 668 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)