Gladys Novoson v. Del Vista Condominium Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1918
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 2, 2025.

________________

No. 3D23-1918 Lower Tribunal No. 15-4429 ________________

Gladys Novoson, Appellant,

vs.

Del Vista Condominium Association, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Perry & Neblett, P.A., and David A. Neblett, John A. Wynn and James M. Mahaffey III, for appellant.

Conroy Simberg, and Diane H. Tutt (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS, and SCALES, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM. Gladys Novoson, the plaintiff below, appeals two final orders1 wherein

the trial court, acting sua sponte, purported to “close this case as all judicial

labor is complete.” The judicial labor in this case, however, is not complete

because Novoson is entitled to an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees

and costs pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. We, therefore,

reverse the challenged orders.

This case was set for trial on February 6, 2018. On the day of trial, the

parties announced a settlement in open court. On February 7, 2018,

Novoson filed a notice of settlement below that set forth the terms of the

parties’ settlement agreement, including that Novoson was entitled to

prevailing party attorney’s fees and court costs. On February 8, 2018, the

trial court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice based on the

parties’ settlement, but reserving jurisdiction to enforce the settlement

agreement (the “dismissal order”).

Del Vista Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”), the

defendant below, then engaged in protracted discovery with Novoson related

to the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to Novoson, but no fees

11 The two orders are a September 25, 2023 “Order to Close Case” and a September 27, 2023 “Order to Close Case.” The September 27th order differs from the first in that it denies a motion that was pending, but not adjudicated, in the September 25th order.

2 hearing was ever set before the trial court. Some years later, apparently

believing that the dismissal order had ended the judicial labor in the case,

the trial court sua sponte entered the challenged orders on appeal. The

Association properly and commendably confesses error, conceding that the

challenged orders must be reversed because the dismissal order approved

the parties’ settlement agreement, and Novoson’s entitlement to attorney’s

fees and costs is provided for by the agreement. See Broadband Eng’g, Inc.

v. Quality RF Servs., 450 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (providing

that the trial court retains the inherent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a

settlement agreement, even where the court’s order approving the

agreement dismisses the action with prejudice). Accordingly, we reverse the

challenged orders.

Reversed.