365 So.3d 1176
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- Evans (plaintiff/appellant) was injured and retained counsel to pursue a personal-injury claim.
- Counsel negotiated with the insurer’s adjuster and agreed to a $4,000 settlement; a settlement draft and release were sent.
- Upon receipt, counsel immediately told the insurer a mistake had been made and that Evans would not accept or cash the check; one month later Evans filed suit.
- Insurer (Diaz, appellee) moved to enforce the settlement, submitting the adjuster’s affidavit and counsel’s representation letter but no evidence that Evans expressly authorized a $4,000 settlement or later ratified it.
- Trial court granted enforcement, finding a meeting of the minds; Evans filed an affidavit denying consent and appealed.
- Fourth DCA reversed, holding appellee failed to prove Evans gave his attorney "clear and unequivocal" authority to settle or ratified the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diaz) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of attorney-negotiated settlement (mutual assent/authority) | Counsel agreed to $4,000 with adjuster; settlement accepted by counsel | Counsel lacked express authority to settle for $4,000; no ratification by Evans | Reversed — appellee failed to prove clear and unequivocal authority or ratification |
| Reliance on written record / sufficiency of record without transcript | Court properly relied on motion and adjuster affidavit | Error apparent on record; no evidence of client authorization | Appellate court reviewed and concluded written evidence was insufficient to support enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Choate v. RySurg, LLC, 330 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (contract principles govern settlement review; de novo review for formation issues)
- Nehleber v. Anzalone, 345 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (five rules on attorney authority to settle client claims)
- DeJour v. Coral Springs KGB, Inc., 293 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (party enforcing settlement must show clear and unequivocal authority or ratification)
- Ponce v. U-Haul Co. of Fla., 979 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (ratification required to bind client to unauthorized settlement)
- Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (when ruling rests entirely on written evidence, appellate court is in same position as trial court)
- Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985) (settlements favored but must show mutual agreement)