22ND AVENUE DRUGS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MAISONNEUVE INVESTMENTS, INC., AND THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEES; LUIS LEYVA ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. MAISONNEUVE INVESTMENTS, INC., AND THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, 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.
The court held that a proposed settlement agreement was not binding because there was no mutual assent, justifying the trial court's decision to set it aside.
Tenants and landlords attempted to reach a settlement agreement regarding rental charges under a lease. A dispute arose immediately over the meaning o…
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 Mutual Assent cases and more on FLexlaw
[*113] HENDRY, Judge.
These interlocutory appeals concern the applicability of a proposed settlement agreement between the parties which attempted to define certain rental charges due under a lease.
Appellants, tenants of the appellee-land-lords, contend that the agreement was stipulated to by the parties in a court hearing and therefore it is binding on the parties and the court.
Appellees submit, however, that the effect of the proposed agreement was not binding because there was no meeting of the minds as' required to formulate a contract, therefore the agreement at issue is at most “an agreement to agree.”
Further, appellees point out, as they did in the trial court, that “before we even literally got out of the courthouse” a fundamental dispute arose over the meaning of the term “base rent” in the proposed agreement.
After hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court set aside the proposed settlement stating for the record, “I want you to come back, and you will have a full trial.”
We think the doubt raised by the parties concerning the rent due under the full lease, and now under the proposed written settlement, justified the action taken by the court. Cf., Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co. v. Forman, 469 F. 2d 259 (5th Cir.1972).
It requires no citation to authority that settlements are favored in the law. Nevertheless, such policy considerations cannot serve to deny litigants resort to a full judicial proceeding. See, St. Regis Paper Company v. Hill, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 201.
Additionally, one seeking judgment pursuant to an agreement to settle must show mutual assent. Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 910; Lefort v. Calderone, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 559.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the order appealed is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foden v. Stambaugh, 405 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…court upon our holding that the record fails to support the trial court’s finding that petitioner authorized settlement. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Horton, 366 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 22nd Avenue Drugs, Inc. v. Maisonneuve Investments, Inc., 313 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 321 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1975); State Department of Transportation v. Plunske, 267 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Remanded for further proceedings.…
-
22ND Ave. Drugs, Inc. v. Maisonneuve Invs., 321 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari dismissed. 313 So. 2d 112.…
Authorities Cited
- Goff v. Indian Lake Ests., Inc., 178 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Forman, 469 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1972)
- ST. Regis Paper Co. v. Hill, 202 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Crawford v. Baron, 244 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Lefort v. Calderone, 244 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)