Nastasi v. Thomas

Citations: 88 So. 3d 407; 2012 WL 1698486; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7833Docket: Nos. 4D09-5063, 4D10-722

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 16, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal and cross-appeal were filed concerning two non-final orders related to ongoing litigation over a written settlement agreement aimed at extinguishing an existing easement and establishing an alternate one. The appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to address most issues except for the denial of relief under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which it affirmed. The trial court previously ruled on November 10, 2009, and November 30, 2009, regarding motions related to noncompliance with the settlement agreement. The November 10 order granted the plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, denied contempt sanctions against defendant Joseph Nastasi, and denied Nastasi's motion to vacate prior orders. The November 30 order reiterated these rulings and added specific findings about compliance and obligations under the settlement agreement. Nastasi filed a motion for clarification and subsequently appealed before a hearing on that motion occurred. On January 25, 2010, the trial court denied a motion to vacate the November 30 order and upheld its validity, while also denying the defendants' motion for sanctions.

Thomas filed a cross-appeal concerning the January 25 order, while Nastasi argued that the trial court's order enforcing a settlement agreement is a final order, citing several Florida cases for jurisdiction. However, the court found those cases inapplicable because the trial court's decision to send the parties to mediation indicates that further judicial action is necessary. Thus, the November orders, requiring additional judicial labor, were deemed non-final and non-appealable. The trial court's November 30 order was preferred as it did not necessitate a transcript review. Nastasi also claimed jurisdiction under specific Florida appellate rules, arguing that the order was akin to an injunction and related to real property access, but the court found no support for these claims, as the orders did not constitute an injunction or affect property possession. Only the rulings on Rule 1.540 relief were appealable. Nastasi's motion to vacate prior orders due to alleged contempt and newly discovered evidence was deemed meritless, as the motion was untimely and did not present evidence that could alter the outcome of the previous decisions. Thomas did not provide jurisdictional grounds for his cross-appeal, and the court concluded there was no basis for it. The trial court noted the prolonged litigation over the settlement agreement and emphasized that contempt sanctions should only be applied when a court order is violated, aiming to mitigate future appellate disputes.

A settlement agreement must be included in a court order for it to be enforceable, and parties must be directed to comply with it before contempt sanctions can be applied. In *Holmes v. Coolman*, it was established that a former spouse could not be held in contempt for violating an agreement not formalized in a court order. Similarly, *Gilman v. Altman* indicated that without a court order directing the execution of a deed, contempt rulings are invalid. The current appeal determined that none of the non-final orders were appealable under Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, except for the ruling denying a motion to vacate under Rule 1.540(b). The court affirmed the denial of the motions to vacate regarding Rule 1.540(b) grounds and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. It was noted that while Nastasi claimed an order dated November 17, 2009, existed, the records did not support this; instead, a January 25, 2010 order referenced a November 10 order, which was likely misidentified as November 17. The court confirmed Nastasi received notice of the March 3, 2008 contempt hearing and found his argument regarding the lack of a finding of ability to comply with prior orders to be without merit, as the questioned orders did not impose sanctions.