Courts have consistently rejected arguments similar to Pack's. For example, in Platinum Luxury Auctions v. Concierge Auctions , 227 So.3d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) —a case discussed by the district judge—Florida's appellate court reversed the trial court for following an argument that is materially indistinguishable from Pack's. There, the bidding between two auction companies ran on with escalating rivalry.

We therefore review de novo the trial court's order interpreting the Settlement Agreement." Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citation omitted). The extent to which a trial court has reserved jurisdiction in a final judgment is also a pure question of law that we review de novo.

The non-disparagement provision is written prospectively, not retroactively. See , e.g. , Platinum Luxury Auctions v. Concierge Auctions, LLC , 227 So.3d 685, 688-89 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017) (reversing trial court for ordering removal of January 2014 online article when September 2016 settlement agreement concerned future non-disparagement obligations). Also, leaving the press release online (at most an omission) is a far cry different than making a disparaging statement or republishing the statement—what the non-disparagement clause would prohibit.

Given the language of the joint stipulation and the trial court’s order, we hold that the trial court did retain such jurisdiction. Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("When a trial court approves a settlement agreement by order and retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the trial court has the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement."). In so holding, we are not addressing the merits of Appellants’ motion to enforce the 2016 Settlement.

It appears that the general magistrate once again improperly rewrote the parties’ MSA in an attempt to fashion a result that it believed was fair and equitable. See Rocha, 35 So. 3d at 976 ; Suess, 289 So. 3d at 529-30 (holding that a court is powerless to rewrite a marital settlement agreement "to make it more reasonable or advantageous for one of the contracting parties") (quoting Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("A trial court is not authorized to intervene to ameliorate a hardship that a promisor, such as the former husband in this case, could have thus avoided."); see also Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("An order enforcing a settlement agreement must conform with the terms of the agreement and may not impose terms that were not included in the agreement.") (quoting Johnson v. Bezner, 910 So. 2d 398, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ). IV. CONCLUSION

Further, the trial court correctly found Perrin's request that it order work done based solely on Perrin's deeming the repairs were necessary would result in exceeding its jurisdiction by enforcing non-terms of the settlement agreement. Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[T]he extent of the court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is circumscribed by the terms of that agreement." (quoting Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 803 (Fla. 2003) )).

The court found the agreement to be "valid, binding, and enforceable" and dismissed the action with prejudice. Tavarez then appealed the trial court's order. A trial court's decision construing a contract, such as a settlement agreement, presents an issue of law that is reviewed de novo . Platinum Luxury Auctions v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685, 687-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). A trial court's final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is reviewed de novo , construing all reasonable inferences from the allegations in favor of the appellant.

Accordingly, the trial court erred when it imposed its own effective date. See Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So.3d 685, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("An order enforcing a settlement agreement must conform with the terms of the agreement and may not impose terms that were not included in the agreement." (quoting Johnson v. Bezner, 910 So.2d 398, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ) ).