Boyko v. Ilardi

613 So. 2d 103, 1993 WL 15635
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 26, 1993
Docket92-1457
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 103 (Boyko v. Ilardi) 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
Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103, 1993 WL 15635 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

613 So.2d 103 (1993)

Rebecca BOYKO, Appellant,
v.
Michael A. ILARDI, and Service Control Corporation, Appellees.

No. 92-1457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 26, 1993.

*104 Murray Sams, Jr., Watson, Clark & Purdy, Ft. Lauderdale, and Mark Purdy, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Paul H. Field, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff Rebecca Boyko appeals from a final order compelling her to execute settlement documents in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident. We affirm based on a holding that (1) counsel for the respective parties entered into a binding oral settlement agreement which was expressly agreed to by both parties, including the plaintiff, see, e.g., Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1976); Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 493 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Serv. Corp., 326 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); (2) said settlement agreement was not barred by the statute of frauds [§ 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1991)], because performance could be completed within one year; and (3) the execution of the settlement documents was not a condition precedent to the settlement agreement, but rather a mere procedural formality which both parties to the settlement agreement were obliged to perform. We have not overlooked the plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ramirez v. TD Dans Corp.
S.D. Florida, 2024
Payano v. Walmart Inc.
M.D. Florida, 2024
Cary Portner v. Gil Koppel and Aleksandra Koppel
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Hermes Castillo v. Stanley
S.D. New York, 2020
Marin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co.
239 So. 3d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Gonzalez v. Claywell
24 So. 3d 1260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Miles v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
677 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (M.D. Florida, 2009)
Peraza v. Robles
983 So. 2d 1189 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Samra v. Shaheen Business & Investment Group, Inc.
355 F. Supp. 2d 483 (District of Columbia, 2005)
Orchid Island Properties v. Wg Mills
889 So. 2d 142 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co.
896 So. 2d 665 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. InterAmerican Car Rental, Inc.
781 So. 2d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Erhardt v. Duff
729 So. 2d 529 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Bartel v. J & A Balboa Enterprises, Inc.
703 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
613 So. 2d 103, 1993 WL 15635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyko-v-ilardi-fladistctapp-1993.