Case Name: Joseph Michael ROBBIE, Appellant, v. Timothy J. ROBBIE, Janet Lee Robbie, and Daniel Robbie, individually, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Joseph Robbie, and as Trustees under the inter vivos Joseph Robbie Trust agreement, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-08-03
Citations: 622 So. 2d 133
Docket Number: No. 93-1252
Parties: Joseph Michael ROBBIE, Appellant, v. Timothy J. ROBBIE, Janet Lee Robbie, and Daniel Robbie, individually, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Joseph Robbie, and as Trustees under the inter vivos Joseph Robbie Trust agreement, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 622
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
Joseph Michael ROBBIE, Appellant, v. Timothy J. ROBBIE, Janet Lee Robbie, and Daniel Robbie, individually, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Joseph Robbie, and as Trustees under the inter vivos Joseph Robbie Trust agreement, Appellees.
No. 93-1252.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 3, 1993.
Warwick & Reynolds and Betsy Warwick, Miami, for appellant.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and Robert L. Shevin and Richard B. Simring, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court order enforcing the agreement between the Robbie siblings. The trial court properly concluded that the agreement was an integral part of the stipulation of settlement executed on behalf of the parents' estates, and the order under review is supported by competent, substantial evidence. James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Raheb v. DiBattisto, 483 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Moreover, the trial court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the motion, see Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), appeal dismissed, 327 So.2d 31 (Fla.1976), and the parties' substantial rights were not adversely affected by the issue's procedural resolution. Accordingly, the order enforcing the agreement is affirmed.
Affirmed.