sunEthics

Order enforcing settlement agreement reversed due to lack of evidence that counsel had "clear and unequivocal" authority to settle  [Added 7/24/08]

    A trial court entering an order enforcing a settlement agreement.  The parties that opposed entry of the order ("Opponents") appealed, contending that the trial court erred because the party moving for settlement ("Proponent") failed to establish that Opponents' lawyer had authority to settle the case.

    The Second DCA agreed and reversed.  "A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of showing that an attorney for the opposing party had the clear and unequivocal authority to settle on the client’s behalf."  In this case, the record was "not sufficient to permit a conclusion that [Opponent's] attorney Corso had 'clear and unequivocal' authority to settle."  The only evidence presented by [Proponent] regarding Corso's lawyer's authority was through its counsel, who "testified to having received communications from Corso and his office indicating that Corso had the necessary authority to settle the case."  They did not have personal knowledge regarding what Corso's clients authorized him to do.  Corso's clients, however, "testified that attorney Corso was authorized only to communicate to opposing counsel that his clients were proceeding in good faith toward settlement, not that they had entered into a binding settlement agreement."  (Lawyer Corso did not testify.)

    Consequently, on this record the appeals court stated that it "cannot conclude that [Proponent] met its burden to prove that attorney Corso had clear and unequivocal authority from his clients to settle the case."  Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf Bay Land Holdings II, Ltd., ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 2d DCA, Nos. 2D07-2137, 2D07-2224, 7/18/2008).

sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University's Jones School of Law.  Please read our disclaimers.  Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX.  © 2008