FRATANGELO
v.
COOSEMANS
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.
This appeal concerns the enforcement of a settlement agreement in consolidated cases from Miami-Dade County. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision enforcing the settlement based on competent, substantial evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's enforcement of the settlement, holding that the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and must be reviewed with a presumption of correctness.
[1] In reviewing a trial court's factual findings from a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the appellate court applies a competent subst…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court's judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.”
Standard of review for trial court findings in settlement enforcement hearings
James Fratangelo and others appealed a circuit court decision in consolidated cases numbered 15-29932 and 15-18158 involving settlement enforcement ag…
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 30, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _______________ No. 3D18-0705 Lower Tribunal Nos. 15-29932 & 15-18158 ________________ James Fratangelo, et al., Appellants, vs. Daniel Coosemans, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. and Jose G. Sepulveda, Kelly R. Melchiondo and Ryan T. Thornton, for appellants. Kula & Associates, P.A., Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller, for appellee. Before LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ., and SUAREZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hamilton v. Florida Power & Light Co., 48 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“When there is a nonjury finding on disputed evidence [in an order enforcing settlement], 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.’”) (quoting Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (When the trial court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, “[t]he findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court's judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Menendez v. Bonafonte, 314 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Perrin v. DE Soleil S. Beach Ass'n Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Hamilton v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 48 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Sharon M. Simmons v. Bryant Wardlaw, 48 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)