OLGA M. STEELE, APPELLANT,
v.
NITIN J. PARIKH, M.D., & MID-FLORIDA GASTROENTEROLOGY GROUP, 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.
Olga Steele, personal representative of her deceased husband's estate, appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Parikh. The court affirmed the enforcement, finding that Steele orally accepted the settlement offer and was bound by it despite her later attempted revocation.
The court affirmed enforcement of the settlement agreement, holding that the record clearly showed Steele orally accepted the settlement and was thus bound by it, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to vacate.
[1] A party's oral acceptance of a settlement offer binds them to the agreement.
[2] A party's subsequent revocation of a settlement acceptance is ineffective once the offer has been accepted.
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“We are constrained to note that the record clearly shows that Steele orally accepted the settlement and is thus bound.”
The court's conclusion that Steele was bound by her oral acceptance of the settlement offer despite her later claimed confusion and attempted revocation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteele sued Dr. Parikh for medical malpractice. Parikh offered to settle the case for $999.00 toward Steele's attorney's costs. Steele's attorney conv…
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 Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Olga M. Steele appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement on the motion of Nitin J. Parikh, M.D. and Mid-Florida Gastroenterology Group (“Parikh”). Steele argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion because Parikh did not prove there was a meeting of the minds between the parties. We affirm.
Steele was the personal representative of the estate of her husband, Clifford Steele, and she sued Parikh for medical malpractice. At the hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, Steele’s attorney stipulated to the facts alleged by Parikh. Steele’s attorney conveyed to Steele an offer from Parikh to settle the case for $999.00 toward Steele’s attorney’s costs. Steele’s attorney stipulated that Steele accepted, that he conveyed the acceptance to Parikh’s attorney and that, having spoken to her daughter, Steele revoked her acceptance. Steele’s attorney informed Parikh’s attorney of the revocation, and Parikh moved for enforcement of the agreement.
Steele argues on appeal that there was no agreement with Parikh. She contends that she was confused during the conversation with her attorney. She recalls that her attorney said that he was being offered $1,000 for his costs, but does not recall the word settlement ever coming up in the conversation. Citing Long Term Management, Inc. v. University Nursing Care Center, Inc., 704 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), she argues that because of the confusion, there was no meeting of the minds concerning settlement with Parikh.
The record does not support Steele’s recollection of her conversation with the attorney. During the hearing, Steele’s at torney stipulated that there was an agreement. He stated:
I will be happy to present whatever evidence you want. I think if-it’s — if we — I agreed to — except for the legal arguments, I agree with the factual presentation [defense counsel] presented, and both — all three of us are willing to— are available to testify depending on what Your Honor would prefer. We are constrained to note that the record clearly shows that Steele orally accepted the settlement and is thus bound. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1985); Maher v. Best Western Inn, 667 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 676 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1996); Hartley v. Hartley, 134 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Interamerican CAR Rental, Inc., 781 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…Estate and pursuant to the previously resolved settlement terms. A settlement agreement does not have to be in writing, and does not have to definitely fix all details of the parties’ understanding in order to be enforceable. See Steele v. Parikh, 735 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); De Cespedes v. Bolanos, 711 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Boyko v. Ilardi 613 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Moreover, there is no requirement that settlement monies actually be transferred in order to find a particular settlem…
Authorities Cited
- Robbie v. City OF Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985)
- Long Term Mgmt., Inc. v. Univ. Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 704 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Jacquetta W. Hartley v. Hartley, 134 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Maher v. Best Western INN, 667 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)