Christopher Zacarias v. Alaym Aguilar

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0310
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 8, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0310 Lower Tribunal No. 20-12242 CC ________________

Christopher F. Zacarias, Appellant,

vs.

Alaym Aguilar, et al., Appellees.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge.

Neil Rose, for appellant.

Xander Law Group, P.A., and Wayne R. Atkins, for appellee Alaym Aguilar.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 471.003(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Employees of a firm,

corporation, or partnership who are the subordinates of a person in

responsible charge, licensed under this chapter [are not required to be

licensed as a licensed engineer].”); § 471.031(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (“Any

person who is exempt from licensure under s[ection] 471.003(2)[(e)] may use

the title or personnel classification of ‘engineer’ in the scope of his or her

work under that exemption if the title does not include or connote the term

‘professional engineer,’ ‘registered engineer,’ ‘licensed engineer,’ ‘registered

professional engineer,’ or ‘licensed professional engineer’ and if that person

is a graduate from an approved engineering curriculum of [four] years or

more in a school, college, or university which has been approved by the

board.”); see also Vision Palm Springs, LLLP v. Michael Anthony Co., 272

So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Preliminary negotiations do not

establish a sufficient manifestation of mutual assent to create an enforceable

settlement agreement.”) (citing Jaffe v. Jaffe, 147 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2014)); Williams v. Ingram, 605 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)

(noting settlement agreement “must be sufficiently specific and mutually

agreeable as to every essential element” to be judicially enforceable);

Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Where

the language of a release is disputed and the parties fail to reach an

2 agreement as to the character, nature, or type of release to be used, an

essential element of the agreement is not established.”).