Orth v. Orth
The Third District held that a final judgment that merely referenced a settlement agreement by date and filing date instead of using words like 'ratify,' 'approve,' or 'adopt' nonetheless incorporated the agreement by reference, giving the trial court continuing jurisdiction to enforce it under Paulucci. The court nonetheless reversed multiple enforcement rulings because the general magistrate improperly rewrote the parties' unambiguous agreement (imposing an 'in-network' physician requirement, splitting a smoker-rate premium, requiring maintenance of a specific life insurance policy, and creating a 'Deductible Account' not contemplated by the agreement).
Key facts
- Orth sued Orth over enforcement of a settlement agreement; the trial court entered a final judgment referencing the settlement agreement by execution and filing dates and reserving jurisdiction to enforce it.
- The general magistrate issued multiple enforcement orders that modified the settlement agreement's terms, including imposing physician network requirements, restructuring insurance premium payments, mandating a specific life insurance policy, and creating a 'Deductible Account' not in the original agreement.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The incorporation-by-reference holding is the takeaway for civil practitioners: courts may find continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement even absent the magic words 'ratified, approved and adopted,' so long as… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.