A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. v. C.M.R. Properties, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. v. C.M.R. Properties, Inc.

903 So. 2d 299, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 2005 WL 1340870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-3015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 903 So. 2d 299 (A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. v. C.M.R. Properties, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. v. C.M.R. Properties, Inc., 903 So. 2d 299, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 2005 WL 1340870 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of taking testimony from the persons who, on behalf of the parties and without counsels’ presence, purportedly reached a settlement of this cause. After taking the testimony the trial court shall determine whether these persons had a meeting of the minds reaching a full and complete settlement of the cause. If the trial court finds that such a meeting of the minds occurred, then the trial court shall enforce the terms thereof exactly as reached. Should the trial court find from the testimony that no meeting of the minds occurred it shall decline to enforce any purported settlement agreement and shall proceed with the cause. See Spiegel v. H. Allen Homes, Inc., 834 So.2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(holding that a trial court’s finding that there was a meeting of the minds must be supported by compe[300]*300tent substantial evidence in order to enforce a settlement agreement).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of taking testimony from the persons who, on behalf of the parties and without counsels’ presence, purportedly reached a settlement of this cause. After taking the testimony the trial court shall determine whether these persons had a meeting of the minds reaching a full and complete settlement of the cause. If the trial court finds that such a meeting of the minds occurred, then the trial court shall enforce the terms thereof exactly as reached. Should the trial court find from the testimony that no meeting of the minds occurred it shall decline to enforce any purported settlement agreement and shall proceed with the cause. See Spiegel v. H. Allen Homes, Inc., 834 So.2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(holding that a trial court’s finding that there was a meeting of the minds must be supported by compe[300]*300tent substantial evidence in order to enforce a settlement agreement).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 So. 2d 299, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8518, 2005 WL 1340870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-1-duran-roofing-inc-v-cmr-properties-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack