FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0174 

LT Case No. 2019-CA-005753 

_____________________________ 

BETSY WALTRIP,

Appellant,

v.

JANE THOMPSON, CRYSTAL 

JARUSIEWIC, and UNKNOWN 

TENANT,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Marianne L. Aho, Judge. 

Mark S. Barnett, of the Barnett Law Firm, PLLC, Jacksonville,

for Appellant.

R. Cash Barlow, of the Legal Consult, P.A., Yulee, for Appellee, 

Jane Thompson.

No Appearance for Remaining Appellees.

April 12, 2024

EISNAUGLE, J.

Appellant, Betsy Waltrip, appeals the denial of her motion to 

enforce settlement agreement and consent final judgment. We 

affirm. 
2

In the underlying suit, Appellant alleged that Appellee, Jane 

Thompson, breached an option to purchase real estate contained 

in her lease agreement. The parties entered into a mediated 

settlement agreement, and at their request, the trial court 

rendered a consent final judgment tracking the settlement 

agreement.

Thereafter, as required by the settlement agreement and

consent final judgment, the parties entered into a purchase and 

sale agreement (“PSA”) for the property. Given the timing, the 

trial court could not have considered or relied on the PSA when 

rendering the consent final judgment. When Appellee allegedly 

refused to cooperate with closing the sale of the property as 

required by the PSA, Appellant moved to enforce the settlement 

agreement and consent final judgment. See generally Paulucci v.

Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 803 (Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen a 

court incorporates a settlement agreement into a final judgment 

or approves a settlement agreement by order and retains 

jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the court has the jurisdiction to 

enforce the terms of the settlement agreement . . . .”); MTW 

Jordan, Inc. v. Baskerville, 323 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021);

MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2000) (“If the litigants have presented their settlement to the 

judge, who in turn incorporated or relied upon that settlement 

agreement and entered an order of dismissal predicated on the 

parties’ settlement agreement, the litigants may later file a motion 

in the dismissed case seeking enforcement of the settlement 

agreement. In this scenario, there is no doubt that the court has 

the power to rule on the motion since a court has inherent and 

continuing power to enforce its own orders.”).

The trial court denied the motion, correctly observing that the 

consent final judgment essentially only required Appellee to enter 

into a PSA. As a result, Appellee complied with the settlement 

agreement and consent final judgment.

On appeal, the lion’s share of Appellant’s argument is that 

Appellee breached certain provisions of the PSA. But Appellant 

only moved to enforce the settlement agreement and consent final 

judgment below. She did not file an action for breach of the PSA, 
3

nor did the trial court rely on the PSA when rendering 

judgment. See generally Paulucci, 842 So. 2d at 803 (“[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.”).

AFFIRMED.

JAY and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________