Max Tafel Selman v. Progressive American Insurance Company

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court exceeded its limited continuing jurisdiction by ordering the insured to repay the insurer after entry of a final judgment enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. Because the settlement and final judgment did not address the insurer’s prior payment to the vehicle lienholder, the insurer’s post-judgment motion effectively sought to revisit the final judgment and was untimely.

Holdings

1. When a trial court approves a settlement agreement and reserves jurisdiction to enforce it, the court's continuing jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement and is circumscribed by those terms.
2. After a final judgment becomes final because no timely rehearing motion is filed or the rehearing motion is denied and the appeal period expires, the trial court loses jurisdiction to rehear the judgment on the merits; a reserved-jurisdiction clause does not authorize unrelated post-judgment relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction under its final judgment to adjudicate Progressive's post-judgment motion seeking repayment based on Progressive's prior payment to the vehicle lienholder.
2. Whether the trial court exceeded its reserved jurisdiction by awarding post-judgment relief not provided for in the settlement agreement or contemplated by the final judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded