GONZALO VILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
MUMAC CONSTRUCTION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Appellant Villa sought to avoid a settlement judgment stipulated to in open court, claiming he was induced to enter it through fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court found no evidence of fraud and enforced the settlement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a party seeking to avoid stipulations made in open court must show good cause, and Villa failed to demonstrate any error.
The trial court did not err. A party seeking to avoid stipulations entered into in open court bears the burden of showing good cause for relief. The trial judge's finding that appellant failed to show good cause arrives at the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and appellant failed to make any error appear on appeal.
[1] A party seeking to avoid the consequences of stipulations entered into in open court must show good cause for relief from those stipulations.
[2] A trial court's finding that a party failed to show good cause to be relieved of stipulations is presumed correct on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is incumbent upon a party seeking to avoid the consequences of stipulations entered into in open court to show good cause why the terms of such stipulations should not be enforced.”
Establishes the legal standard that the burden is on the party challenging stipulations to demonstrate good cause for relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Villa and appellees entered into stipulations of settlement in open court, which were incorporated into a judgment of settlement. Villa subs…
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 On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court enforcing a judgment of settlement, stipulated to in open court by appellant and appellees, and denying his amended motion for a new trial or hearing.
It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to relieve him from the obligations assumed under the stipulations incorporated in the judgment of settlement, because, allegedly, he was induced to enter into them through fraud and misrepresentation on the part of appellees.
After a hearing on appellant’s objections to the enforcement of the judgment of settlement, the trial judge found that there was nothing to show any fraud or misrepresentation. Thereupon, the trial court entered an order enforcing the terms of the judgment of settlement and denying appellant’s amended motion for a new trial or hearing.
It is incumbent upon a party seeking to avoid the consequences of stipulations entered into in open court to show good cause why the terms of such stipulations should not be enforced. See Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796; and Esch v. Forster, 123 Fla. 905, 168 So. 229. Here, the trial judge found that appellant had failed to show good cause to entitle him to be relieved of the obligations under the stipulations. This finding arrives in this court with a presumption of correctness, and appellant has failed to make any error appear on appeal. See, e. g., Imperial Lumber Co. v. James Knowles, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 53; Frasee v. Frasee, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 484; Wrains v. Rose, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 75; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 313 and 316. Therefore, the judgment of settlement and order appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agustin DE LA Guardia v. DE LA Guardia, 536 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…cation. We find no error and affirm. Lopez v. Dublin Company, 489 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Camson v. Carrison, 486 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Strickland v. Strickland, 344 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); compare Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The wife cross-appeals urging error in the award of certain fees to the special master, fees to the husband’s prior attorneys from an account in the husband’s name u…
-
Seabird Props., Inc. v. Villages OF Seaport Condo., 696 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…stances, I cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion by electing to enforce the agreement. See Wagner v. Mack, 422 So. 2d 1045 ( Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1983); see also Villa v. Mumac Constr. Corp., 334 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This is especially so because the law favors settlements. See Crosby Forrest Prods. Inc. v. Byers, 623 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Dorson v. Dorson, 393 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Esch v. Davis Forster, 123 Fla. 905 (Fla. 1936)
- Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1939)
- Wrains v. Rose, 175 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Frazee v. Frazee, 185 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Imperial Lumber Co., Inc. v. James Knowles, Inc., 267 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)