For these reasons, the court abused its discretion by rejecting the application to set aside the judgment in absentia. We turn around and take pre-trial detention for the authorization of the verdict. If you both wish to waive your final declaration, you can use the disposition and the waiver of the final declaration (Form FL-144). If you do not use this form, make sure that your written agreement includes very specific language about the waiver. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co. v. Molko, 602 So. 2d 983 (Fla.3d TCA 1992), succinctly states the Settlement Agreements Interpretation Act: If you have any questions or want to make sure that the agreement is in your best interest (and that of your children if you have children), talk to a lawyer before signing it. Click here for help finding a lawyer. The settlement agreement provided for a “default case” if the defendants had breached an obligation to pay a required payment on the due date and had not remedied that breach within 10 days. In the event of default “and as long as it continues”, the lender was entitled to demand payment of the full amount of the default plus interest. At the time of the dispute, the default totalled $3,000,000.

A decision by the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico emphasizes the importance of developing effective default provisions in aircraft transaction agreements. In Arecent Financial Corporation v. Far Away Holdings, LLC, et al., paragraph 3:14-cv-01222, 2015 WL 4203444 (D.P.R. 13. July 2015), the court considered counterclaims for summary judgment arising from the interpretation of a settlement agreement to remedy the failure of aircraft purchasers to repay loan amounts to finance their purchase of two aircraft. The issue was whether the default provision of the settlement agreement allowed the lender to recover all the deficit due under the original loan agreements, plus interest, costs and attorneys` fees. Settlement agreements “are subject to the rules of contract interpretation.” Robbie vs. City of Miami, 469 Sun. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985).

The clear expression of the meaning of a contract should not be altered by judicial interpretation, Pafford v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 52 Sun. 2d 910 (Fla. 1951); BMW by N. Am., Inc.c. Krathen, 471 Sun. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), Revision denied, 484 Sun. 2d 7 (Fla. 1986); ==External links==== References ==== Bast, 582 So. 2d 150, 151 (Fla.

4. LOAC, 1991). A Florida court of appeals reminds us that such terms are only enforceable if the person authorized to move has strictly fulfilled the termination obligations. Id. at p. 983. The settlement agreement provided for a written notice of default to be sent to the addresses specified in the agreement and specified that all notices would be sent to those addresses. Honey did not send its notice to the email address set out in the agreement. Instead, his lawyer emailed the notice to two other addresses and sent it by registered mail to the physical address specified in the agreement. Only the registered letter complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Recognizing this fact, Honig`s request for final judgment in default did not mention service by email, but relied on the acknowledgment of receipt of the registered letter sent to the physical address in the settlement agreement in order to establish service of the notice on the plaintiffs on March 10. Honig swore that the plaintiff had not made a payment and refused to make any further payments, even though he had received the default payment declared four days before the filing of the claim and within the five-day repair period. This was a false statement that should have led to the suspension of the final judgment. The Court of First Instance abused its discretion by rejecting the application where the facts from the minutes conclusively proved the misrepresentation. A notice of delay and possibility of recovery was issued on behalf of Osteroid. In an additional brief filed as part of the enforcement proceedings, Red & White asserted that the settlement obligation was fulfilled during the healing period by a combination of payments by cheque and delivery (allegedly confirmed by an “electronic receipt”) of “32 kilograms of pure gold valued at $1,177,000 and $83,000 in cash.” The trial court issued a judgment of $3,664,655 that included the additional $700,000. The court told Rouge et Blanc that it could file a request for partial satisfaction of the verdict and request a stay of execution pending the taking of evidence on the alleged payments. It was, after all, a unilateral request for a final judgment. Due process requires strict compliance with any agreement allowing the registration of a unilateral judgment. The registration of ex parte orders is at a great disadvantage by law.

This is a lesson from Fricker v. Peters & Calhoun Co., 21 Fla. 254 (1885). There, the Florida Supreme Court described the rule requiring a defendant`s notification before filing a receivership application as “very strict,” subject to narrow exceptions such as “in cases of serious urgency, immediate court intervention to prevent irreparable harm.” Id., pp. 256-57; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(a)(1) (concerning injunctions without notice); Mercy Lu Enters., Inc.c. Liberty Mut. In. Co., 681 So.

2d 758, 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (noting that “[t]he process values” require “strict compliance with legal requirements” for the delivery of substituted processes). If strict compliance with the notice periods of an agreement is not respected, the ex parte judgment must be annulled. Red & White Distribution, above, began an action by Osteroid Enterprise, LLC and its director Eric Oster to collect a $1,800,000 promissory note. Red & White claimed that the note was usurious and unenforceable. After the court granted a request for a summary determination of the contract claim, the parties settled the matter by entering into a “payment agreement” that provided for payments of $2,100,000 by Rouge et Blanc over a one-year period. Part of the settlement was a provision for the registration of the judgment, which stipulated that in the event of late payment, Osteroid could obtain a judgment of $2,800,000, plus interest and attorneys` fees on an ex parte motion. The court cited Jade Fashion, loc. cit.

O., in which he noted that “the provision in the agreement requiring defendants to pay the full $15 million is neither a lump-sum damages clause nor a penalty.” The statement distinguishes between a number of cases in which penal provisions in settlement agreements have been repealed, including Vitatech Boarding., Inc.c. Sporn, 16 Cal. App. 5th 796 (2017) and Greentree Fin. Grp., Inc.c. Execute Sports, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 495 (2008). The difference, the court explained, was that “in this case, the defendants did not agree to settle the underlying dispute for an amount disproportionately less than the amount That Mitsuwa could recover as lump sum damages for a breach of agreement. On the contrary, the defendants expressly agreed to pay Mitsuwa the same amount of money to settle their dispute ($15 million) that Mitsuwa could recover if the defendants violated the agreement. The decision in this case is governed by the interaction of two legal principles, namely that the parties have broad discretion in the design of the terms of a settlement agreement, whereas the provisions of an agreement that allow a court to act unilaterally are interpreted narrowly and narrowly […].