Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 28, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-487
Lower Tribunal No. 14-16905
________________
Steven Enterprises Group Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Diversified Aero Inventory I, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr and Daryl E. Trawick, Judges.
Billbrough & Marks, P.A., and Geoffrey B. Marks, for appellant.
Goldstein & Company, Jason Goldstein and Maria Piva, for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Steven Enterprises Group Inc. (SEG) appeals the trial court’s order
enforcing a settlement agreement pursuant to the plain language of the
agreement and entering final judgment in favor of Diversified Aero Inventory
I, LLC. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110. SEG contends the
trial court erred in entering final judgment without holding an evidentiary
hearing as to the question of default. As it was undisputed that SEG
defaulted on payments and the trial court merely enforced the agreed terms
of the settlement agreement’s enforcement provision, we affirm. 1
FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement
agreement whereby SEG agreed to pay the sum of $60,000 to Diversified in
monthly installments. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court entered an
order of dismissal of all claims between the parties and reserved jurisdiction
to enforce the settlement agreement. Beginning in May 2019, SEG
defaulted by failing to make monthly payments. On June 17, 2019,
Diversified sent a notice of default to SEG. On June 18, 2019, SEG
1
We affirm without further discussion SEG’s appeal from the denial of its
motion for rehearing. See Baron v. Provencial, 908 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla.
4th DCA 2005) (“Courts have held that where there is ‘nothing whatever left
for the court to do,’ an order enforcing a settlement agreement is final and
appealable.” (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147, 1149
(Fla. 3d DCA 1981))); Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149,
1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“[O]nce a judgment becomes final—as where (a)
a final judgment has been entered, and (b) a motion for rehearing under
1.530 has been denied . . .—the trial court loses jurisdiction to rehear the
judgment on the merits.” (citation omitted)).
2
responded to the notice of default claiming it did not know where to send
payments. That same day, Diversified replied to SEG and reiterated that all
future and outstanding payments could be made via wire transfer or by mail
to the physical address specified in the agreement. SEG failed to make any
payments pursuant to the agreement. On June 26, 2019, after the time to
cure the default had lapsed, Diversified filed a motion to enforce the
settlement agreement with accompanying affidavit concerning the failure to
make monthly payments or cure the default. The trial court entered an order
granting the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. SEG moved for
rehearing and requested an evidentiary hearing despite acknowledging that
it failed to make the payments. The trial court denied rehearing.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
“Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and are therefore,
interpreted and governed by contract law.” Com. Cap. Res., LLC v.
Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citations omitted).
“The construction of a contract is a question of law for the courts to determine
where the language used in the written contract is clear, unambiguous, and
susceptible of only one interpretation.” Gray v. D & J Indus. Inc., 875 So. 2d
683, 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “To compel enforcement of a settlement
agreement, its terms must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreed upon
3
as to every essential element.” Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d
295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citation omitted).
The plain language of the settlement agreement provided:
2. Enforcement. In the event SEG defaults
on this Agreement, including by failing to make any
payments in accordance with Section 1, Diversified
shall provide written notice of the default to SEG by
email under Section 3 (“Notice of Default”). SEG
shall have five (5) days from the date of the Notice of
Default to cure the default (the “Cure Date”). . . . In
the event SEG fails to cure the default within five (5)
days of receiving Notice of Breach under to this
Section 2, Diversified shall be entitled to a judgment
for full payment of the amount claimed as damages
in this Litigation, totaling Seventy-Seven Thousand
Six Hundred and Forty-One U.S. Dollars and 26/00
($77,641.26), plus all interest accrued and minus any
payments under this Agreement, upon ex parte
presentment of an affidavit to the Court.
Under the unambiguous terms of the agreement, “upon ex parte
presentment of an affidavit to the Court” confirming SEG’s failure to cure
default upon notice of the breach, Diversified was entitled to a judgment for
the full amount claimed as damages. The plain language of the enforcement
provision required only the presentment of the affidavit and did not require
or authorize an evidentiary hearing. It was undisputed that SEG defaulted
by not making monthly payments for May 2019 and June 2019. Thus, the
trial court appropriately granted the motion to enforce the settlement
agreement without requiring an evidentiary hearing.
4
Affirmed.
5