LARRY J. THOMAS, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Robinson v. Mitchel Kalmanson, 882 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
  …istence of his Former Wife’s reliance, we must reverse. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966); see also Lawrence v. Pep Boys—Manny Moe & Jack, Inc., 842 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Former Husband argues that Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla.2001), is dispositive. The Florida Supreme Court there held that in cases in which a marital settlement agreement is reached after the initiation of litigation and the completion of discovery, a party challenging the final judgment should not b…
• Kuchera v. Kuchera, 983 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …may be challenged for fairness. But after litigation has been pursued, the governing standard for a settlement agreement is not the one employed in Casto. Litigation settlement agreements are judged, rather, by the later standard in Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla.2001), and this court’s decision in Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Macar holds that, when each party has been represented by chosen counsel and given an opportunity to learn the financial resources of the other throug…
• Williams v. Williams, 939 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
  …iling to enforce the parties’ agreement. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 “provides the framework for challenging settlement agreements entered into after the commencement of litigation and utilization of discovery procedures.” Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707, 713 (Fla.2001); see also Fla. Fam. L.R. P.12.540. Rule 1.540(b) provides in pertinent part as follows: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order,…

Authorities Cited

• Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1994)
• Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)