Case Name: Arthur C. STILL, Jr. and Art's Tree Service, Appellants, v. POLECAT INDUSTRIES, INC., Wayne Gwilliam, Reed Bingham, Esq., Reed Bingham, P.A., Clifford M. Kolber, and Lynn Gwilliam, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-11-27
Citations: 683 So. 2d 634
Docket Number: No. 96-2141
Parties: Arthur C. STILL, Jr. and Art’s Tree Service, Appellants, v. POLECAT INDUSTRIES, INC., Wayne Gwilliam, Reed Bingham, Esq., Reed Bingham, P.A., Clifford M. Kolber, and Lynn Gwilliam, Appellees.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
Arthur C. STILL, Jr. and Art’s Tree Service, Appellants, v. POLECAT INDUSTRIES, INC., Wayne Gwilliam, Reed Bingham, Esq., Reed Bingham, P.A., Clifford M. Kolber, and Lynn Gwilliam, Appellees.
No. 96-2141.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 27, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1996.
Arthur C. Still, Jr., in pro. per.
Concepcion, Sexton, Bingham & Urdaneta, and Francis X. Sexton, Jr., and David A. Pearl, Coral Gables; Bierman, Shohat, Lo-ewy, Perry & Klein, Miami, for appellees.
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Arthur C. Still, Jr. and Art's Tree Service, appeal an order dismissing their action with prejudice after the trial court declined to modify the settlement agreement signed by both parties. We affirm.
Settlement agreements are highly favored in the law as a means of resolving disputes between parties. The appellants were represented by counsel, entered into a binding settlement agreement, and ratified the terms of the agreement by accepting the settlement funds. Accordingly, we find no legal basis to contest the settlement agreement. See Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kisz v. Massry, 426 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Shields v. Del Rosario, 303 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert, denied, 315 So.2d 97 (Fla.1975).
Affirmed.