JENNIFER E. STOOTHOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
DELBERT M. HOBDY, JR., 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's finding that parents had a valid and binding settlement agreement regarding their children's time-sharing schedule. The court held that because the parties were still negotiating multiple aspects of a required Parenting Plan and no complete written agreement was executed, no binding settlement existed.
No valid and binding settlement agreement existed. Because the parties intended the complete Parenting Plan to be reduced to writing with all terms fully understood and definitely stated, and because other aspects of the Plan remained for negotiation, the contract was not complete or binding until reduced to writing and acquiesced in by both parties.
[1] A settlement agreement concerning a Parenting Plan is not valid and binding until it is reduced to writing and executed by both parties, especially when the parties inten…
[2] Where parties intend that a contract will not be binding until negotiations are reduced to a formal writing, no contract exists until that time.
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“Where it appears 'that the parties, or either of them, intended that the contract should be reduced to writing, so that its terms would be fully understood and definitely stated in the writing, the contract will not be regarded as complete or binding until it is reduced to writing and acquiesced in by both parties.'”
Establishes the governing legal principle that when parties intend to execute a written contract with fully understood and definitely stated terms, no binding contract exists until the writing is executed and accepted by both parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Stoothoff (mother) and Delbert Hobdy, Jr. (father) were negotiating the terms of a Parenting Plan under Florida law. The negotiations covered…
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 Time-Sharing Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue in this case is whether the mother, Jennifer Stoothoff, and the father, Delbert Hobdy, had a valid and binding settlement agreement concerning the time-sharing schedule of their children. Because no such agreement exists, we reverse.
The record reveals that the parties were negotiating the terms of a Parenting Plan governed by section 61.046(14), Florida Statutes (2010). Time-sharing of the children is just one aspect of the Plan; other issues remained for negotiation between the parties before a written, binding agreement could be reached. There was no written document executed by the parties regarding all aspects of the Plan, as contemplated under section 61.046(14), and, therefore, the trial court erred in concluding that a valid and binding settlement agreement had been reached. See DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 31 So.3d 313, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA) (“Where it appears ‘that the parties, or either of them, intended that the contract should be reduced to writing, so that its terms would be fully understood and definitely stated in the writing, the contract will not be regarded as complete or binding until it is reduced to writing and acquiesced in by both parties.’ ” (quoting Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Fla. Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 390, 52 So. 13, 16 (1910))), review granted, 47 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2010); Am. Capital Network v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So.2d 874, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Where the parties intend that there will be no binding contract until the negotiations are reduced to a formal writing, there is no contract until that time.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the order under review entitled “Final Judgment of Time-Sharing” and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MONACO, and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Fla. Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1910)
- Dk Arena, Inc. v. Eb Acquisitions, LLC, 47 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2010)
- DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 31 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Am. Cap. Network & Robert Schlein v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)