When a homeowner and their insurer disagree about whether they ever actually reached a settlement, a trial court cannot decide that fight on paper. It has to hold an evidentiary hearing first. The Third District Court of Appeal said so on December 31, reversing a Miami-Dade order that had enforced a settlement against homeowners Edwin and Connie Ricardo and sanctioned them.
The Ricardos sued Typtap Insurance over 2021 damage to their home. After mediation, the insurer said the parties had struck an oral deal and pointed to a written agreement the Ricardos signed the next day and to the mediator’s report checking “the parties reached an agreement.” The Ricardos swore they never agreed at mediation and had told their lawyer to “hold off” on sending the signed papers. The trial court enforced the settlement anyway, without taking evidence.
Because the existence of the agreement turned on genuinely disputed facts, the panel held, an evidentiary hearing was required before the court could find a binding contract. The court reversed the enforcement order and, with it, vacated the sanctions. It declined to reach whether the agreement was valid under Rule 1.730(b), leaving that body of law untouched.
**Why it matters:** parties fighting over whether a settlement exists are entitled to put on evidence before a judge decides. A signature and a mediator’s checkbox are not the end of the inquiry when mutual assent is contested.
*Case: Ricardo v. Typtap Insurance Co., No. 3D24-0448 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 31, 2025). Opinion by Judge Bokor.*