ROBERTO A. GOMES, APPELLANT,
v.
BOATARAMA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Appellants Boatarama, Inc. and Wilfred A. Bost, II sought review of a trial court order following a prior appellate decision regarding the valuation of a boat sold pursuant to a settlement agreement.
The appellate court reviewed the trial court's determination of the boat's value, which was based on various Blue Book listings and appraisals, in light of the prior appellate mandate.
[1] A trial court errs when it deviates from the express terms of a settlement agreement.
[2] A settlement agreement's specific valuation categories control over industry standard valuation guides when there is a discrepancy.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoatarama and Gomes settled a boat sale, agreeing to a discount from the Blue Book value, but disagreed on the boat's specific value. The trial court …
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 Dispute Resolution cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, C.J.
Roberto Gomes (“Gomes”) appeals the trial court’s adverse judgment concerning a settlement agreement. Because the trial court deviated from the terms of the settlement agreement, we reverse.
In this settlement agreement, Boatara-ma, Inc. (“Boatarama”) agreed to sell Gomes a boat with a “Bluebook” value of $400,000 to $800,000. The Bluebook is the boating industry’s standard valuation guide. Boatarama further agreed to discount the Bluebook’s listed price by $250,000. Gomes would then pay Boatara-ma the difference.
Boatarama located a boat, a 2002 Sear-ay, which met the parameters of the settlement agreement. Boatarama contacted Gomes, and then it bought the boat. Although Gomes approved of the boat, the parties did not yet agree on the boat’s exact value. The settlement agreement further provided that if the parties disputed the boat’s value, each could contact an appraiser. The appraisers would determine the boat’s condition, and designate whether the boat should be valued by the Bluebook’s low, medium, or high category. Ultimately, the parties each contacted separate appraisers.
Although the appraisers agreed that the boat was in excellent condition, they could not agree on which of the Bluebook’s three different valuation categories to use. The Bluebook’s three valuation categories varied somewhat from the valuation categories in the settlement agreement.
The Bluebook labels its three valuation categories as low, high and code. The settlement agreement, however, lists the categories as low, medium, and high. Therefore, the only real issue for the trial court to resolve was the dispute over whether to use the Bluebook’s “high” or “code” category to determine the boat’s value.
After hearing from both parties’ appraisers regarding the terminology ambiguity, the trial court determined the boat’s value was $641,720. Then, the trial court used the 2006 Bluebook’s “code” value, added a 10% condition adjustment and added transportation and storage costs. We conclude the trial court deviated from the terms of the settlement agreement.
Because the settlement agreement did not include the term “code” but does include a “high” category, and because the settlement agreement did not include an option to add any adjustments or additional costs, we reverse. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter a final judgment that reflects the 2006 Bluebook’s “high” value of a 2002 Searay, with no adjustments.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andersen Windows, Inc. v. Hochberg, 997 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…nambiguous contracts. E.g., Hill v. Deering Bay Marina Ass’n, 985 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). And where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it must be enforced as written. See Spiegel, 834 So. 2d at 297; see also Gomes v. Boatarama, Inc., 963 So. 2d 869, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (reversing where trial court deviated from express terms of parties’ settlement agreement); BAC Int’l Credit Corp. v. Macia, 626 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concluding that a “settlement should be enforced in accord…
-
Boatarama, Inc. v. Gomes, 7 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…CORTINAS, J. Appellants, Boatarama, Inc. and Wilfred A. Bost, II, a/k/a Wilfred A. Bost, seek review of the order entered by the trial court following our mandate in Gomes v. Boatarama, Inc., 963 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Gomes I”). Boatarama and Gomes entered into a settlement agreement wherein Boatarama agreed to sell Gomes a boat with a “Blue Book” value between $400,000 and $800,000. Pursuant to the agreement, Boatarama would discount the Bl…