THEODORE LAZZARO, LYNDA LAZZARO, AND THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MILLER & SOLOMON GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., AND MIZNER GRAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, BOCA MARINA LTD., 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.
Condominium unit owners appealed a trial court order enforcing a settlement agreement that resolved a class action lawsuit against contractors and engineers for defective sewage lines. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the owners were bound by the settlement agreement as certified class members and failed to opt out of the class before court approval.
The owners were bound by the settlement agreement as certified class members and could not pursue a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court properly granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the owners' suit because the owners failed to present evidence that they properly opted out of the certified class before the court approved the settlement.
[1] A settlement agreement, once properly entered into and relating to a matter appropriate for stipulation, is binding upon the parties and the court.
[2] Settlement agreements are highly favored in the law.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court. This is especially true of settlement agreements which are highly favored in the law.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that settlement agreements are binding and favored in law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceImproperly installed sewage lines throughout a condominium development caused flooding damage to the owners' unit. The condominium association sued th…
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 Opt-Out Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
The owners of a condominium unit appeal a final order enforcing a settlement agreement in litigation in which they were involved. We affirm the order.
Improperly installed sewage lines throughout the condominium resulted in the flooding of owners’ unit. Their insurance paid for some of the damages but not all. They notified the association who in turn sued the contractor, architect and engineers because the defect existed throughout the development. Ultimately the association agreed to settle those suits during mediation. The settlement agreement required both the association and a class of all unit owners to agree. The court certified a class of owners and the association as class representative on behalf of all unit owners. The court approved the settlement agreement. The defendants paid nearly $2 million to the association and general releases were delivered.
Nearly a year later, owners filed this suit against all the defendants in the class action as well as the association. They sought additional damages to their unit. In response to this suit, all defendants joined in a motion to enforce the settlement agreement against owners as members of the certified class bound by its terms.
At an evidentiary hearing on the motion to compel, witnesses testified on behalf of the moving defendants that the settlement agreement was duly executed and performed by all parties and was explicitly binding on all unit owners. These witnesses further testified that owners never gave any notice before approval of the settlement by the court that owners desired to “opt out” of the certified class. Owners offered no evidence of their own at the hearing and, specifically, they offered nothing to conflict with the testimony of the witnesses for the parties moving to enforce the settlement agreement to bar owners’ subsequent suit. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the suit. Owners appeal that decision.
The law is well settled that:
“a stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court. This is especially true of settlement agreements which are highly favored in the law.” [C.O.]
Dorson v. Dorson, 393 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). A settlement agreement is a contract. An unambiguous contract provision must be afforded its plain meaning. Broward County v. LaPoints, 685 So.2d 889, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
In this case, the settlement agreement was authenticated and introduced as evi*976dence at the hearing. All parties stipulated to its validity. Owners’ counsel explicitly stated she had no dispute as to the validity of the settlement agreement. It is also not disputed that the association had the authority to initiate and settle lawsuits as the class representative of the unit owners who are members of the condominium association. A non-consenting class member had the right not to be part of the class and could opt out. Owners failed to present any evidence of ever properly exercising that right.
Affirmed.
GROSS, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. Simpson, 68 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…peal. Ospina-Baraya v. Heiligers, 909 So. 2d 465, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The plain language of this contract is controlling, as unambiguous contract language “must be afforded its plain meaning.” Lazzaro v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 48 So. 3d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). A plain reading of the provision states that the alimony obligation abates after appellee has been involuntarily out of work for ninety consecutive days. Thus, appellee’s obligation did not abate until the ninety days had r…
-
Givans v. Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC, 82 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10, 15 (Fla.1958); J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc., 820 So. 2d 367, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). An unambiguous contract provision must be given its plain meaning. See Lazzaro v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 48 So. 3d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “A contract of guaranty may be absolute or it may be conditional.” Rooks v. Shader, 384 So. 2d 681, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Under an absolute guaranty, the guarantor becomes liable immediately upon default by the debtor. S…
-
Legacy Place Apt. Homes, LLC. v. PGA Gateway, Ltd., 65 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…So. 3d 618, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The agreement is unambiguous, and the plain language of the agreement states that the parties “shall share all impact fee credits for the Shared Cost Work.” See Lazzaro v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 48 So. 3d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that unambiguous contract language “must be afforded its plain meaning”). A connection fee is generally considered to be a type of impact fee charged by utility companies for initiating new service. See, e.g., Save…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dorson v. Gertrude Dorson, 393 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Broward Cnty. v. LaPOINTE, 685 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)