Fisher v. Fisher

344 So. 2d 1291, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15731
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fisher v. Fisher. Read the opinion of the Court — 318 So. 2d 434
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 1977·No. No. 77-327·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found that an oral stipulation placed in the record by the attorneys for the parties in the absence of their clients which anticipated that the parties would sign a full settlement contract could [1292]*1292not be enforced against a client who testified that she had not authorized the settlement. The finding of fact that the client had not authorized or agreed to the settlement is supported by sufficient evidence in this record to call for an affirmance in this court. See Town of Medley v. McCahill, 164 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); and Heath v. First National Bank in Milton, 213 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

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

Fisher v. Fisher, 344 So. 2d 1291, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15731 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

344 So. 2d 1291 (Fisher v. Fisher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heath v. First National Bank in Milton
213 So. 2d 883 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Town of Medley v. McCahill
164 So. 2d 541 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)