MARIO GENTILE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAOLA GENTILE, 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.
In this marital dissolution property division case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order dividing real property according to mediator appraisals that excluded canal access for the ex-husband. The court found the settlement agreement likely contemplated canal access and remanded to determine the parties' true intent and redivide the property accordingly.
The trial court erred in granting the ex-wife's motion and ordering property division based on the mediator's appraisals. The settlement agreement likely contemplated canal access for the ex-husband, as evidenced by the aerial view attached to the final judgment and counsel's reference to 'the little corner' during the settlement announcement. The proper division of property was not a matter subject to binding mediation; only valuation disputes were.
[1] A trial court must resolve disputes regarding the proper division of property when such disputes are not subject to binding mediation under the parties' settlement agreem…
[2] A settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution of marriage may contemplate specific property divisions, including access to amenities like canal…
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“The ex-husband points to the aerial view of the property that was attached to the final judgment, which appears to show a small corner of land providing canal access. In addition, during the final hearing, while announcing the terms of the settlement agreement, the ex-husband's counsel referred to the aerial photograph and noted that the ex-husband's parcel included "the little corner." The record therefore, appears to support the ex-husband's contention that the settlement agreement, contemplated canal access.”
Establishes the evidence supporting the ex-husband's claim that the settlement agreement included canal access.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMario and Paola Gentile settled their divorce with a settlement agreement providing that their house and ten acres would be divided as shown in an att…
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
■ Mario Gentile, the ex-husband, seeks review of a trial court order that approved a mediator’s report and directed that real property be divided pursuant to appraisals relied on in mediation.1 The parties dispute the proper division of the property and whether their settlement agreement contemplated canal access for the ex-husband. We reverse and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the settlement agreement contemplated canal access and, if necessary, for proper division and valuation of the parcels.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was announced on the record. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated the agreement and provided that .the house and ten acres would be divided as set out in an aerial view attached to the judgment. The ex-husband contends that the settlement agreement contemplated that he would receive a little corner of land providing him canal access. In the judgment, the parties agreed to binding mediation of any dispute regarding the value of the parcels.
The parties stipulated to appraisal reports, which the mediator relied on in making valuation findings. When it came time to divide the property, however, the parties could not agree.
The ex-wife moved the court to ratify the mediator’s report and asked the court *344to direct that the property be split without canal access for the ex-husband. She argued that the mediation report had not contemplated the division requested by the ex-husband and that the ex-husband’s parcel would have greater value with canal access. The parties disputed whether the appraisals relied on in mediation included canal access for the ex-husband. The ex-husband argued that a survey prepared before mediation had divided the property with canal access as set out in the judgment, but the ex-wife presented evidence that the' appraisals relied on in mediation did not include canal access.. She argued that if the parcel was configured as requested by the ex-husband, then the appraisals would have to be updated. The court declined the ex-husband’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputes.
The ex-husband points to the aerial view of the property that was attached to the final judgment, which appears to show a small corner of land providing canal access. In addition, during the final hearing, while announcing the terms of the settlement agreement, the ex-husband’s counsel referred to the aerial photograph and noted that the ex-husband’s parcel included “the little corner.” The record therefore, appears to support the ex-husband’s contention that the settlement agreement, contemplated canal access. The trial.-court should have resolved the dispute as to the proper division of the property, which was not a matter that the parties agreed to submit to binding mediation.
We agree with the ex-husband that the trial court erred in granting the ex-wife’s motion and ordering the property divided pursuant to the appraisals relied on in mediation. We disagree with the ex-wife that the ex-husband invited error or that his stipulation to the appraisals waived his right to have the property divided as set out in the settlement agreement. The final judgment provided that the parties would mediate any disputes as to the value of the parcels only. The record in this proceeding does not show a waiver or that the proper division of the property was subject to mediation.
We therefore reverse the order and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the settlement agreement entered into by the parties contemplated canal access for the ex-husband. If so, and if the appraisals relied on in mediation did not account for the corner of land providing canal access, then new appraisals and further mediation as to value may be required.
Reversed and remanded.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.