C. WAYNE KINSER; PORT PANACEA MARINA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; HARBOR HOUSE RESTAURANT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND PEPPERTREE RESORT VILLAS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
RONALD FRED CRUM AND ELOISE CRUM, 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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's decision to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement after dismissing the underlying case with prejudice. The court held that a trial court may retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement terms even when the remedy sought falls outside the scope of the original pleadings.
A trial court may retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement even after dismissing the underlying action with prejudice. The settlement agreement's explicit reservation of the right to enforce its terms, combined with the trial court's retention of jurisdiction for that purpose, authorizes the court to adjudicate disputes arising from the settlement.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement even if the case is dismissed with prejudice, provided the agreement explicitly reserves the right to…
[2] A trial court's order dismissing a case with prejudice may explicitly retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement 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“Plaintiffs [Appellees] shall dismiss this case with prejudice subject only to reserving the right to enforce this agreement.”
Settlement agreement language establishing the express reservation of enforcement rights while dismissing with prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees and Appellants entered into a settlement agreement regarding the marketing and sale of certain property for one year. The settlement provide…
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 Certify Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have before us an appeal of the enforcement of a settlement agreement in which the trial court awarded damages to Appellees. We affirm. The terms of the settlement agreement provided that Appel-lees would have the right to market and sell certain property for a period of one year, and included the following language: “Plaintiffs [Appellees] shall dismiss this case with prejudice subject only to reserving the right to enforce this agreement.” Before dismissing the suit, Appellees filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Appellants argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract and that, instead, Appellees should file a separate suit to allege a breach of the settlement agreement. Appellants filed a motion requesting the trial court dismiss the case with prejudice, as required by the settlement agreement. On October 14, 1998, the trial court entered an order of dismissal, stating:
1. The court has reviewed the settlement agreement entered into by the parties, which has been filed with the court.
2. The court relies on the settlement in dismissing this action.
The trial court adjudged the action dismissed with prejudice, except “[t]his court specifically retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.” The trial court entered Final Judgment against Appellants, and awarded damages to Appellees pursuant to a mathematical calculation contained in the settlement agreement.
We find Oceanair of Florida, Inc. v. Beech Acceptance Corporation, 545 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), relied upon by Appellants, distinguishable, and instead follow Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our review of Florida case law reveals an irreconcilable difference between Buckley Towers and opinions of the Fifth District in General Dynamics Corporation v. Paulucci, 797 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), George Vining & Sons, Inc. v. Jones, 498 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Wallace v. Townsell, 471 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Therefore, we certify conflict with those cases.1
The remaining issues raised by Appellants are without merit, and we affirm without discussion. AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR. . In General Dynamics Corp., 797 So. 2d at 21, the Fifth District certified the following issue to the Florida Supreme Court as being one of exceptional importance and as being in conflict with Buckley Towers:
DOES A COURT WHICH APPROVES A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE TERMS THEREOF EVEN IF THE REMEDY SOUGHT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL PLEADINGS?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jeno F. Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2003)…oting that “[t]here are numerous case law holdings that even without an express reservation thereof, jurisdiction inherently remains in the trial court to make such orders as may be necessary to enforce its judgment.” Id. at 629. In Kinser v. Crum, 823 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the First District cited the Third District’s decision in Buckley Towers with approval and held that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. As in Buckley Towers, the…1 / 2
-
TIC Park Ctr. 9, LLC v. Wojnar (S.D. Fla. 2022)…remedy to enforce a settlement agreement of this kind where the amounts are set forth in the agreement and the Court retained jurisdiction to do so. E.g., Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 801 (Fla. 2003) (approving Kinser v. Crum, 823 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)) (holding that remedy for breach of settlement agreement is enforcement of judgment circumscribed by the terms of the agreement, in contrast with general damages arising from a breach that require a separate action for non-a…
Authorities Cited
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- George Vining & Sons, Inc. v. Farida R. Jones, 498 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Wallace v. Townsell, 471 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Jeno F. Paulucci and Lois Mai Paulucci, 797 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Oceanair OF Fla., Inc. v. Beech Acceptance Corp., 545 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)