ROSA NUNEZ AND MERCEDES MARTINEZ
v.
HECTOR CASALS D/B/A INFANTIA ACADEMY
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.
An appeal of a non-final order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement lacks jurisdiction when the order is based on factual findings rather than an express determination as a matter of law that the settlement agreement never existed, is unenforceable, or was set aside.
[1] An appeal of a non-final order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is barred for lack of jurisdiction when the trial court's order is based on factual find…
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“authorizing appeals of non-final orders that determine 'that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed'”
Citation to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix) explaining the jurisdictional requirement
Rosa Nuñez and Mercedes Martinez sought to enforce a settlement agreement against Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy. The trial court held an eviden…
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 Settlement Agreement Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1748 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-3534-CA-01 ________________
Rosa Nuñez and Mercedes Martinez, Appellants,
vs.
Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.
Law Offices of Alfaro & Fernandez, P.A., and Elbert Alfaro, for appellants.
Bell Rosquete Reyes Esteban, PLLC, Alexander Esteban, Henry Bell and Dimitrije Canic, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
2 Rosa Nuñez (“Nuñez”) and Mercedes Martinez (“Martinez”) appeal a non-final order denying their motion to enforce settlement agreement. Because the trial court’s order was based upon the factual findings established at the evidentiary hearing and did not expressly determine, as a matter of law, that a settlement agreement never existed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix) (authorizing appeals of non-final orders that determine “that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed”); Powell v. Woodard, 300 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“[W]e conclude that the trial court's order in this case did not ‘determine’ ‘as a matter of law’ that ‘a settlement agreement . . . never existed’ under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix), such that jurisdiction is lacking.”); Duchateau v. Duchateau, 361 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (dismissing an appeal because the order denying the motion to enforce settlement agreement “did not expressly determine, as a matter of law, that the May 28, 2021 settlement agreement was not enforceable, never existed, or was set aside,” and instead was based upon factual findings). Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Powell v. Mildreda Woodard, 300 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Duchateau v. Jeannine Duchateau, 361 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)