Court Opinion

ID: 9959765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:03:19.624077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:52.597426
License: Public Domain

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.
     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,

                                 2
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.
               _____________________________

                                3