Summary
affirming the order granting the motion to enforce a settlement agreement "in the absence of any error of law discernible on the face of the order reviewed"
Summary of this case from Honahan v. BurgesonOpinion
No. 3D19-1768
03-25-2020
Carlos GUILLEN, Appellant, v. Diomar RODRIGUEZ, et al., Appellees.
Carlos Guillen, in proper person. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Reginald J. Clyne, Michelle D. Cofiño and Jennise Acosta, for appellees.
Carlos Guillen, in proper person.
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Reginald J. Clyne, Michelle D. Cofiño and Jennise Acosta, for appellees.
Before SALTER, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
While represented by counsel, plaintiff/appellant Carlos Guillen allegedly agreed to settlement terms with the defendants regarding Mr. Guillen's personal injury claims. A series of emails between counsel culminated in specific terms. On August 5, 2019, counsel for the defendants filed and served a notice of settlement. The following day, however, Mr. Guillen instructed his attorneys to revoke the settlement.
The defendants moved to enforce the settlement in the amount previously designated. Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion (at which Mr. Guillen's counsel allegedly admitted that a settlement was reached, while Mr. Guillen himself allegedly disputed that admission), the trial court entered a final order granting the motion. Mr. Guillen then discharged his counsel and commenced this pro se appeal.
The final order enforcing the settlement must be affirmed, as Mr. Guillen has not provided either (1) a transcript of the specially-set evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce, or (2) a stipulated or approved statement of the proceedings as authorized by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5).
That being so, and in the absence of any error of law discernible on the face of the order reviewed, we affirm the order on the authority of G & S Development Corp. v. Seitlin, 47 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Affirmed.