Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Virgilio F. CAZANAS, Appellant, v. Mayda CAZANAS and Irene Lopez, Appellees.
Virgilio F. Cazanas appeals orders enforcing the sale of the marital home to Irene Lopez. We affirm.
After the trial of matrimonial case, the parties announced on the record a partial settlement agreement for the sale of the marital home to the wife's relative, Irene Lopez. It is our view that once the parties had announced this agreement, they were bound to proceed in good faith to carry it out. “[S]ettlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible.” Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985) (citations omitted). While it is true that the trial court subsequently issued final judgment which contained other procedures for disposition of the marital home, it is not reasonable to suppose that in issuing the judgment, the trial court intended to relieve the parties of their obligations to carry out the already-announced agreement for the sale of the marital home to Ms. Lopez. As we view the matter, the provisions contained in the final judgment would come into play only if the parties through no fault of their own had been unable to complete the transaction with Ms. Lopez.
The former husband objects to a provision in the contract whereby Ms. Lopez gave the former wife a non-interest bearing note for a part of the purchase price. The former husband, however, did not complain about this provision when Ms. Lopez first presented her contract, and in any event, the former husband is not harmed by this provision. We have carefully considered the former husband's arguments that the sale should be upset, but are not persuaded thereby.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D01-3606.
Decided: June 26, 2002
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)