LINDA HAMILTON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HERBERT HAMILTON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY, BOYNTON LANDSCAPE COMPANY, INC., AND SUSAN SMITH, 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.
Linda Hamilton, as personal representative of her deceased father's estate, refused to ratify a wrongful death settlement her attorney negotiated with three defendants for $50,000 each, claiming she had not authorized the settlement. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found the attorney had clear and unequivocal authority to settle, and the appellate court affirmed.
The trial court's findings are affirmed because they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement must show that the attorney had clear and unequivocal authority from the client to settle, and the trial court as finder of fact is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and resolve conflicting evidence.
[1] A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of showing that the attorney proposing the settlement had the clear and unequivocal authority from his…
[2] A trial court's factual findings regarding an attorney's clear and unequivocal authority to settle must be supported by competent, substantial evidence to be upheld on ap…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of showing that the attorney proposing the settlement had the clear and unequivocal authority from his client to do so.”
Establishes the legal standard for enforcing a settlement agreement against a client who claims the attorney lacked authority to settle.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda Hamilton's attorney negotiated a wrongful death settlement with FPL, Asplundh, and Boynton for fifty thousand dollars each on behalf of Hamilton…
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 Attorney'S Authority To Settle cases and more on FLexlaw
Linda Hamilton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Herbert Hamilton, filed a wrongful death action against Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), As-plundh Tree Expert Company (Asplundh), Boynton Landscape Company, Inc. (Boyn-ton) and Susan Smith. FPL, Asplundh, and Boynton settled with Hamilton through her attorney for fifty thousand dollars each. Hamilton asserted that she had not given her attorney the authority to settle and FPL, Asplundh and Boynton filed motions to enforce settlement after Hamilton refused to execute the settlement agreement.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Hamilton had given her attorney the clear and unequivocal authority to settle. Following the evi-dentiary hearing, the trial court granted the appellees’ motions to enforce settlement from which Hamilton now appeals.
A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of *172showing that the attorney proposing the settlement had the clear and unequivocal authority from his client to do so. Sosnick v. McManus, 815 So.2d 759, 762-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court’s factual findings that there was a clear and unequivocal grant of authority must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in order to be upheld on appeal. See Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
At the hearing to enforce the settlement there was conflicting evidence regarding Hamilton’s attorney’s authority to settle. The trial court took testimony and resolved the conflict in favor of the appellees. When there is a nonjury finding on disputed evidence, it is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because the lower court “is in the best position ‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’” Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)). Upon review of the record of the hearing on the motions to enforce settlement there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and we therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cary Portner v. Gil Koppel and Aleksandra Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
-
Fratangelo v. Coosemans, 264 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
John Moriarty & Assoc. of Fla. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., 272 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Guardian AD Litem Program v. Times Publ'g Co., 976 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Carey Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Stephens v. State, 815 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Sosnick v. Danette McMANUS, 815 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)