McLean v. McLane Grocery Dist.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McLean v. McLane Grocery Dist.

41 So. 3d 334, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10532, 2010 WL 2816208

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 2010

Docket1D09-6191

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 So. 3d 334 (McLean v. McLane Grocery Dist.) 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

McLean v. McLane Grocery Dist., 41 So. 3d 334, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10532, 2010 WL 2816208 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas McLean, Claimant, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement of Claimant’s January 5, 1996, workers’ compensation case. Because the settlement papers provided that “[t]his agreement shall have no force and effect and shall be fully voidable by either party until such time that the [JCC] enters the aforementioned Order,” and it is undisputed that the “aforementioned Order” (an order approving the attorney’s fee and child support arrearage allocation) had not been entered at the time Claimant rejected the settlement, the JCC erred in finding the parties had reached a settlement. See Caceres v. Sedano’s Supermarkets, 36 So.3d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jones v. Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 933 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

REVERSED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas McLean, Claimant, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement of Claimant’s January 5, 1996, workers’ compensation case. Because the settlement papers provided that “[t]his agreement shall have no force and effect and shall be fully voidable by either party until such time that the [JCC] enters the aforementioned Order,” and it is undisputed that the “aforementioned Order” (an order approving the attorney’s fee and child support arrearage allocation) had not been entered at the time Claimant rejected the settlement, the JCC erred in finding the parties had reached a settlement. See Caceres v. Sedano’s Supermarkets, 36 So.3d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jones v. Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 933 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

REVERSED.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 3d 334, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10532, 2010 WL 2816208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-mclane-grocery-dist-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack