Linardos v. Lilley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Linardos v. Lilley

590 So. 2d 1064, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12532, 1991 WL 269769

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1991

DocketNo. 91-0681

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 1064 (Linardos v. Lilley) 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

Linardos v. Lilley, 590 So. 2d 1064, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12532, 1991 WL 269769 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM,

We reverse this order enforcing a settlement resulting in a deficiency judgment against appellant. There was no “clear and unequivocal” grant of authority to appellant’s attorney to settle this case. See Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). While there was conflicting evidence that appellee’s attorney may have agreed to a settlement, no one testified that appellants had given their attorney authority to settle the case, and appellant husband specifically testified that he had not conveyed authority. Nor is there anything to suggest that this was an emergency situation where the attorney was forced to act as was the case in Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 421 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). While appellants were not present at the hearing for the deficiency judgment, their testimony was not necessary to present a case. Their attorney testified that his case consisted simply of substantial cross examination of appellee’s real estate expert as to the valuation of the property.

Contrary to the dissent, we cannot defer to the trial court’s implicit “finding” that appellant’s authorized their attorney to settle the case when the undisputed evidence is to the contrary. It was anything but “clear and unequivocal” on that point. The trial court found that a settlement must have been reached between the attorneys. On that point, there was conflicting evidence. The court never really focused on whether the client authorized the settlement. On that point, there was no dispute in the evidence.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM,

We reverse this order enforcing a settlement resulting in a deficiency judgment against appellant. There was no “clear and unequivocal” grant of authority to appellant’s attorney to settle this case. See Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). While there was conflicting evidence that appellee’s attorney may have agreed to a settlement, no one testified that appellants had given their attorney authority to settle the case, and appellant husband specifically testified that he had not conveyed authority. Nor is there anything to suggest that this was an emergency situation where the attorney was forced to act as was the case in Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 421 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). While appellants were not present at the hearing for the deficiency judgment, their testimony was not necessary to present a case. Their attorney testified that his case consisted simply of substantial cross examination of appellee’s real estate expert as to the valuation of the property.

Contrary to the dissent, we cannot defer to the trial court’s implicit “finding” that appellant’s authorized their attorney to settle the case when the undisputed evidence is to the contrary. It was anything but “clear and unequivocal” on that point. The trial court found that a settlement must have been reached between the attorneys. On that point, there was conflicting evidence. The court never really focused on whether the client authorized the settlement. On that point, there was no dispute in the evidence.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 1064, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12532, 1991 WL 269769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linardos-v-lilley-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack