Bowman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

923 So. 2d 1235, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4180, 2006 WL 722169

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 23, 2006·No. No. 1D05-2636·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that a valid and enforceable settlement agreement existed. Accordingly, we affirm as to that issue. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction appellant’s challenge to the award of attorney’s fees because the order reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount. Accordingly, that portion of the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See, e.g., Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that a valid and enforceable settlement agreement existed. Accordingly, we affirm as to that issue. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction appellant’s challenge to the award of attorney’s fees because the order reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount. Accordingly, that portion of the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See, e.g., Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Bowman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 923 So. 2d 1235, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4180, 2006 WL 722169 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

923 So. 2d 1235 (Bowman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related