Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf Bay Land Holdings II, Ltd.
989 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
Two parties that were represented by the same attorney argued that the trial court erred in enforcing a settlement agreement between them and a third party because the third party failed to establish that the attorney representing the dissatisfied parties had the authority to settle the case on his clients’ behalf. They third party testified to having received communications from opposing counsel attorney and his office indicating that the attorney had the necessary authority to settle the case. There was no evidence that counsel negotiating on behalf of the third party had personal knowledge regarding what the aggrieved parties had told their attorney to do; the attorney’s representations to him regarding these matters were insufficient. The parties seeking to avoid the settlement both testified that their attorney was authorized only to communicate to opposing counsel that his clients were proceeding in good faith toward settlement, not that they had entered into a binding settlement agreement. The appellate court held the record was not sufficient to permit a conclusion that the attorney had clear and unequivocal authority to settle.