Summary
holding execution of settlement documents was mere formality rather than condition precedent to enforcement of settlement agreement where parties agreed orally
Summary of this case from Castillo v. StanleyOpinion
No. 92-1457.
January 26, 1993.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert M. Deehl, J.
Murray Sams, Jr., Watson, Clark Purdy, Ft. Lauderdale, and Mark Purdy, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham Lane and Paul H. Field, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
The plaintiff Rebecca Boyko appeals from a final order compelling her to execute settlement documents in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident. We affirm based on a holding that (1) counsel for the respective parties entered into a binding oral settlement agreement which was expressly agreed to by both parties, including the plaintiff, see, e.g., Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1976); Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 493 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cross-Aero Corp. v. Cross-Aero Serv. Corp., 326 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); (2) said settlement agreement was not barred by the statute of frauds [§ 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1991)], because performance could be completed within one year; and (3) the execution of the settlement documents was not a condition precedent to the settlement agreement, but rather a mere procedural formality which both parties to the settlement agreement were obliged to perform. We have not overlooked the plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, but are not persuaded thereby.
Affirmed.