DR. ALEXANDER D. XENAKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
SAM E. LESLIE AND HELEN LESLIE, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's order enforcing a stipulation, finding that the appellant failed to show good cause to be relieved from its obligations. The court emphasized that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, and the appellant provided no such cause.
No, the trial judge did not err. The appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to be relieved from the stipulation, and the trial court's finding that the appellees acted to their disadvantage based on the stipulation was supported.
“it appearing to the court that the Plaintiff has acted or not acted to his disadvantage, based upon the stipulation, and that it would be an error at law not to accept the Stipulation as the agreement between the parties.”
This quote reflects the trial court's finding that justified enforcing the stipulation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Dr. Xenakis, entered into a written stipulation with the appellees, Sam and Helen Leslie. Dr. Xenakis later sought to be relieved from …
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an order entered by the trial judge, enforcing a written stipulation, and assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to relieve the appellant [defendant in the trial court] from the obligations assumed under the stipulation.
As a result of the hearing seeking relief from the stipulation, the court, in entering the order denying such relief, made the following finding:
“ * * * it appearing to the court that the Plaintiff has acted or not acted to his disadvantage, based upon the stipulation, and that it would be an error at law not to accept the Stipulation as the agreement between the parties.”
It is incumbent upon a party moving to avoid the consequences of a written stipulation to show good cause why the terms of the stipulation should not be carried out. See: Smith v. Smith, 90 Fla. 824, 107 So. 257; Penney v. First *501Trust & Savings Bank, 102 Fla. 185, 135 So. 805; Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796. The record on this case is silent as to any good cause warranting relief from the stipulation. The finding of the trial judge arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness, [See: Mellet v. Henry, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 69; Meadows Southern Construction Co. v. Pezzaniti, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 499; Weintraub v. Field, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 54] and the appellant has failed to make error appear on this appeal. Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 107 So. 257 (Fla. 1925)
- Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1939)
- Bouis v. Trusten B. Drake, 90 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1925)
- Smith v. Smith, 90 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1925)
- Mellet v. Henry, 108 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Meadows S. Constr. Co. v. Pezzaniti, 108 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Lulu J. Penney and H. W. Penney v. First Tr. & Sav. Bank, 102 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1931)
- Sydney L. Weintraub & The Brickell Hammock Civic Ass'n v. Field, 143 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)