MICHAEL GIBSON
v.
JOSEPH DANIELS
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 trial court's decision enforcing the settlement agreement was affirmed based on competent substantial evidence supporting the finding that appellant's former counsel had clear and unequivocal authority to settle the case.
[1] In deciding a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, a court may consider documents, affidavits, depositions, and other evidence in the record to determine whether a g…
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“Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that appellant's former counsel had clear and unequivocal authority from appellant to settle the case.”
Citation to Portner v. Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Michael Gibson appealed a circuit court decision in Orange County regarding a settlement agreement. The dispute involved the authority of Gibson's for…
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
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0752 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CA-008516
MICHAEL GIBSON, Appellant,
V.
JOSEPH DANIELS, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Heather Pinder Rodriguez, Judge.
June 12, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See, e.g., Portner v. Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) ("Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that appellant's former counsel had clear and unequivocal authority from appellant to settle the case. . . ."); Albert v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 739 F. App'x 607, 610 n.2 (11th Cir. 2018) (“In deciding a motion to enforce a settlement agreement (as with a motion for summary judgment) a court may consider the documents, affidavits,
depositions and other evidence in the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
MIZE, BROWNLEE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
David L. Perkins and John B. Agnetti, of Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., North Miami Beach, for Appellant.
Megan G. Colter and Thomas A. Valdez, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, and Kathleen MacMillan and Stevie Baker, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2