Defas v. Linares

923 So. 2d 530, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1554, 2006 WL 288383
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 2006·No. No. 3D05-910·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment and the denial of defendant’s motion to enforce settlement agreement. There is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties, Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc., 178 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), and, therefore, no settlement. Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co., 834 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc., 374 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

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

Defas v. Linares, 923 So. 2d 530, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1554, 2006 WL 288383 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

923 So. 2d 530 (Defas v. Linares) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carroll v. Carroll
532 So. 2d 1109 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Socarras v. Claughton Hotels, Inc.
374 So. 2d 1057 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc.
178 So. 2d 910 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest
834 So. 2d 217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)