Cazanas v. Cazanas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cazanas v. Cazanas

824 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2002 WL 1369599

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-3606

StatusPublished

This text of 824 So. 2d 926 (Cazanas v. Cazanas) 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

Cazanas v. Cazanas, 824 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2002 WL 1369599 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Virgilio F. Cazanas appeals orders enforcing the sale of the marital home to Irene Lopez. We affirm.

After the trial of matrimonial case, the parties announced on the record a partial settlement agreement for the sale of the marital home to the wife’s relative, Irene Lopez. It is our view that once the parties had announced this agreement, they were bound to proceed in good faith to carry it out. “[Sjettlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible.” Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985) (citations omitted). While it is true that the trial court subsequently issued final judgment which contained other procedures for disposition of the marital home, it is not reasonable to suppose that in issuing the judgment, the trial court intended to relieve the parties of their obligations to carry out the already-announced agreement for the sale of the marital home to Ms. Lopez. As we view the matter, the provisions contained in the final judgment would come into play only if the parties through no fault of their own had been unable to complete the transaction with Ms. Lopez.

The former husband objects to a provision in the contract whereby Ms. Lopez gave the former wife a non-interest bearing note for a part of the purchase price. The former husband, however, did not [927]*927complain about this provision when Ms. Lopez first presented her contract, and in any event, the former husband is not harmed by this provision. We have carefully considered the former husband’s arguments that the sale should be upset, but are not persuaded thereby.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Virgilio F. Cazanas appeals orders enforcing the sale of the marital home to Irene Lopez. We affirm.

After the trial of matrimonial case, the parties announced on the record a partial settlement agreement for the sale of the marital home to the wife’s relative, Irene Lopez. It is our view that once the parties had announced this agreement, they were bound to proceed in good faith to carry it out. “[Sjettlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible.” Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985) (citations omitted). While it is true that the trial court subsequently issued final judgment which contained other procedures for disposition of the marital home, it is not reasonable to suppose that in issuing the judgment, the trial court intended to relieve the parties of their obligations to carry out the already-announced agreement for the sale of the marital home to Ms. Lopez. As we view the matter, the provisions contained in the final judgment would come into play only if the parties through no fault of their own had been unable to complete the transaction with Ms. Lopez.

The former husband objects to a provision in the contract whereby Ms. Lopez gave the former wife a non-interest bearing note for a part of the purchase price. The former husband, however, did not [927]*927complain about this provision when Ms. Lopez first presented her contract, and in any event, the former husband is not harmed by this provision. We have carefully considered the former husband’s arguments that the sale should be upset, but are not persuaded thereby.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2002 WL 1369599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cazanas-v-cazanas-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack