Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Boyko v. Ilardi, 92-1457 (1993)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 92-1457 Visitors: 13
Judges: Hubbart, Nesbitt and Baskin
Filed: Jan. 26, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 613 So. 2d 103 (1993) Rebecca BOYKO, Appellant, v. Michael A. ILARDI, and Service Control Corporation, Appellees. No. 92-1457. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 26, 1993. *104 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. PER CURIAM. The plaintiff Rebecca Boyko appeals from a final order compelling
More
613 So. 2d 103 (1993)

Rebecca BOYKO, Appellant,
v.
Michael A. ILARDI, and Service Control Corporation, Appellees.

No. 92-1457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 26, 1993.

*104 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.

PER CURIAM.

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 [ยง 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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer