GASPAR NAGYMIHALY AND VERONICA NAGYMIHALY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILLIP P. ZIPES, APPELLEE
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 Nagymihalys appeal a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement their attorney executed on their behalf to cancel a foreclosure sale. The court affirmed, holding that by accepting the benefit of the cancelled foreclosure sale and failing to timely repudiate the agreement, the Nagymihalys ratified the settlement despite their claim their attorney lacked authority.
The court held that the Nagymihalys ratified the settlement agreement by accepting the benefit of the cancelled foreclosure sale and failing to timely repudiate the agreement. They are therefore estopped from attacking the settlement and from claiming their attorney acted in excess of authority.
[1] A party ratifies an unauthorized settlement agreement by accepting its benefits, even if unaware of the unauthorized nature of the agreement at the time of acceptance, pr…
[2] Acceptance of the benefits of a settlement agreement estops a party from later attacking the agreement or a judgment entered thereon.
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“The court may find as a matter of law that where a party accepts the benefits of a settlement or compromise of his case and he knows or in the exercise of due diligence should have known all the facts concerning that settlement (as in the case at bar), he ratifies that settlement by the acceptance of those benefits whether the settlement in the first instance was unauthorized by him or not and he is thereafter estopped to attack the settlement and the judgment entered thereon.”
Establishes the legal doctrine that accepting benefits of a settlement ratifies it and creates an estoppel defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties engaged in extensive litigation involving four lawsuits since June 1974. In case no. 75-14486, a final foreclosure judgment was entered 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 Attorney Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Gaspar Nagymihaly and his wife, Veronica, appeal an adverse final summary judgment in an action for specific performance of a settlement agreement.
Since June 1974 the parties to this appeal have been engaged in extensive litigation involving four lawsuits (case nos. 74-15778, 74-32455, 74-14452 and 75-14486).
In case no. 75-14486 a final judgment of foreclo sure was entered in favor of Phillip Zipes, plaintiff-appellee, and a foreclosure sale was scheduled for July 17, 1975. Prior to the sale, the attorney for the Nagymihalys and Zipes’ attorney entered into a settlement agreement which specifically provided that cancellation of the foreclosure sale was the consideration therefor. The sale was cancelled, but the Nagymihalys failed to perform their obligations under the agreement. Subsequently, on May 27,1976 Zipes filed the instant suit to enforce the agreement. The Nagymihalys defended on the ground that their attorney acted in excess of his authority in entering into the settlement agreement on their behalf. Thereafter, Zipes moved for summary judgment and after hearing, the trial judge entered summary judgment for Zipes.
We affirm.
The court may find as a matter of law that where a party accepts the benefits of a settlement or compromise of his case and he knows or in the exercise of due diligence should have known all the facts concerning that settlement (as in the case at bar), he ratifies that settlement by the acceptance of those benefits whether the settlement in the first instance was unauthorized by him or not and he is thereafter estopped to attack the settlement and the judgment entered thereon. Mungin v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 318 F.Supp. 720, 735 (M.D.Fla.1970), aff’d 441 F. 2d 728 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 897, 92 S.Ct. 203, 30 L.Ed.2d 175 (1971).
See also Branford State Bank v. Howell Co., 88 Fla. 493, 102 So. 649 (1924) and 2 Fla.Jur.2d Agency and Employment §§ 57, 58 (1977) and cases cited therein. It is clear that the Nagymihalys ratified the settlement agreement and accepted the benefit thereunder of cancellation of the foreclosure sale which was the consideration for the agreement. In addition, they did not repudiate the agreement within a reasonable time; not until Zipes filed the instant specific performance action some 10 months after execution of the agreement and cancellation of the foreclosure sale did the Nagymihalys for the first time allege that their attorney acted in excess of his authority in executing the agreement on their behalf.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kisz v. Massry, 426 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…wn, of the facts concerning that settlement, the party ratifies the settlement by accepting the benefits whether the settlement was in the first instance authorized by him, and he is thereafter estopped to attack the settlement. Nagymihaly v. Zipes, 353 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In that appellants agreed to the judgment rendered by the lower court, the judgment is AFFIRMED. GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.…
-
McCLUNG v. McCLUNG, 864 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…have been made in accordance with said agreement, the stipulated final judgment adopting and enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement should be affirmed. See Paulucci v. General Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla.2003); Nagymihaly v. Zipes, 353 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Allstate Ins. Co., 391 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ing the proceeds of the settlements, and, through their subrogee, suing Allstate for the “conversion” of those proceeds, the clients have ratified the settlements and may not now question Johnston’s authority to enter into them. Nagymihaly v. Zipes, 353 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Navrides v. Zurich Ins. Co., 5 Cal.3d 698, 97 Cal.Rptr. 309, 488 P. 2d 637, 640-41 (1971).5 The legal question on which this case turns is therefore the still-narrower one of whether an attorney, specifically authorized to compr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Branford State Bank v. The Howell Co., 88 Fla. 493 (Fla. 1924)
- Beto v. Hernandez, 404 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1971)
- Nehemiah Mungin v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., Inc., 441 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1971)