Rosa Nunez and Mercedes Martinez v. Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy
This text of Rosa Nunez and Mercedes Martinez v. Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy (Rosa Nunez and Mercedes Martinez v. Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1748 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-3534-CA-01 ________________
Rosa Nuñez and Mercedes Martinez, Appellants,
vs.
Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.
Law Offices of Alfaro & Fernandez, P.A., and Elbert Alfaro, for appellants.
Bell Rosquete Reyes Esteban, PLLC, Alexander Esteban, Henry Bell and Dimitrije Canic, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J. Rosa Nuñez (“Nuñez”) and Mercedes Martinez (“Martinez”) appeal a
non-final order denying their motion to enforce settlement agreement.
Because the trial court’s order was based upon the factual findings
established at the evidentiary hearing and did not expressly determine, as a
matter of law, that a settlement agreement never existed, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix)
(authorizing appeals of non-final orders that determine “that, as a matter of
law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never
existed”); Powell v. Woodard, 300 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
(“[W]e conclude that the trial court's order in this case did not ‘determine’ ‘as
a matter of law’ that ‘a settlement agreement . . . never existed’ under Rule
9.130(a)(3)(C)(ix), such that jurisdiction is lacking.”); Duchateau v.
Duchateau, 361 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (dismissing an appeal
because the order denying the motion to enforce settlement agreement “did
not expressly determine, as a matter of law, that the May 28, 2021 settlement
agreement was not enforceable, never existed, or was set aside,” and
instead was based upon factual findings).
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rosa Nunez and Mercedes Martinez v. Hector Casals d/b/a Infantia Academy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-nunez-and-mercedes-martinez-v-hector-casals-dba-infantia-academy-fladistctapp-2024.