WARRIOR CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JEFFRY KNIGHT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH REDMOND CUMMINGS, APPELLEE
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 the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement based on essential terms in an email, but a provision for attorney's fees in the subsequent draft agreement was not agreed upon.
[1] A settlement agreement is binding when the parties have agreed upon all essential and material terms, even if collateral documents are yet to be prepared.
[2] A party cannot unilaterally add material terms to a settlement agreement after the essential terms have been agreed upon.
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 intelligenceShareholder disputes led to lawsuits, and the parties' attorneys agreed to essential settlement terms via email. A later draft agreement included an a…
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 Revocation Of Offer cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, Warrior Creek Development, Inc., and Jeffry Knight appeal a final order enforcing a settlement agreement and a subsequently entered final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Joseph Redmond Cummings.1 We conclude that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, but that a provision for an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the settlement agreement was not one of the material terms agreed upon by the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the final order enforcing the settlement agreement and reverse the final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
Mr. Cummings and Mr. Knight were shareholders of Warrior Creek. A number of disputes arose between these parties with respect to their rights under the shareholder agreement, among other things. These disputes led to the filing of a complaint and counterclaim in the circuit court for Pinellas County, Florida, and related lawsuits in Taylor County, Florida. In November 2008, the parties, through their attorneys, agreed to settle all claims between them. The essential and material terms of the settlement were set forth in a detailed e-mail sent by Mr. Cummings’ attorney to Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight’s attorney on November 11, 2008. Their attorney agreed to the terms contained in the e-mail.
The terms of the agreement anticipated the preparation and execution of collateral documents. Although all essential and material terms of the settlement agreement were addressed in the e-mail, the attorneys thereafter agreed to draft a separate written settlement agreement to be included in the package of settlement documents. When this settlement agreement was drafted, it added a provision for an award of attorney’s fees and costs that was not contained in the agreed-upon terms in *917the November e-mail.2
Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight were the first to sign the agreement that was included in the package of settlement documents. About six days later, however, their attorney sent an e-mail to Mr. Cummings’ attorney stating “[a]s Mr. Cummings has refused to sign the settlement papers, the deal is off,” and he asked Mr. Cummings’ attorney to return the original settlement documents to him. Mr. Cummings had not signed all the settlement documents before his attorney’s receipt of the communication, but he signed them within a day of this e-mail. The signed documents were then returned to Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight’s attorney.
Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight took the position that the November e-mail was merely a preliminary negotiation and that the settlement agreement contained in the package of settlement documents constituted an offer, which was either rejected by Mr. Cummings or revoked by Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight prior to Mr. Cummings’ acceptance. The trial court disagreed. It determined that the essential and material terms of the settlement were reflected in the November e-mail and concluded that Warrior Creek and Mr. Knight’s effort to revoke the settlement was thus ineffective because they had already agreed to the essential and material terms for settlement. It also found that there was no evidence that Mr. Cummings had refused to sign the settlement papers. The trial court noted that the settlement terms did not make time of the essence.
The trial court correctly applied the law to the evidence in finding that the parties had agreed upon all of the essential and material terms for settlement and that those terms were reflected in the November e-mail. See Don L. Tullis & Assocs., Inc. v. Benge, 473 So.2d 1384, 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (explaining that “[t]o be enforced, the [settlement] agreement must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable on every essential element”). However, the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Mr. Cummings because a provision for fees and costs was not included in the settlement agreement to which the parties assented. See, e.g., Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing an order enforcing settlement “to the extent that it failed to mirror the terms of the actual settlement agreement”).
We thus affirm the final order enforcing the settlement agreement and reverse the final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
ALTENBERND and CRENSHAW, 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)…tiation, there can be no enforceable contract.” Bergman v. DeIulio, 826 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citation omitted). Emails between attorneys can constitute an enforceable settlement agreement. See Warrior Creek Dev., Inc. v. Cummings, 56 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the parties agreed to all essential terms and that those terms were incorporated into a final settlement agreement. The correspondence between the parties’…
-
Payano v. Walmart Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…orida, unless the parties agree otherwise, a settlement agreement may exist without a formal writing. See BP Prods. N. Amer., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d at 1132 (“Oral settlement agreements are enforceable . . . .”); Warrior Creek Dev., Inc. v. Cummings, 56 So. 3d 915, 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (affirming the trial court’s determination that a settlement agreement existed when “the parties had agreed upon all of the essential and material terms” in an e-mail). Execution of the written settlement agreement is often m…
-
D.B.C. Corp. v. Nucita Venezolana (S.D. Fla. 2020)…, 2008 WL 3982394, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2008) (applying preponderance standard in accordance with Florida law). Florida law is clear that a settlement can be reached through a series of e-mail exchanges. Warrior Creek Dev., Inc. v. Cummings, 56 So. 3d 915, 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In reviewing those exchanges, Florida courts apply an “objective test” in deciding whether an enforceable contract exists. Perez-Perez v. Vasquez, No. 16-CIV-14002, 2019 WL 5291097, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2019), repor…
Authorities Cited
- Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- DON L. Tullis & Assocs., Inc. v. Benge, 473 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)