damages, whether past, present, or future, and any and all other claims of consequential damages and expenses, including attorney’s fees which have arisen, arise, or which may hereafter arise out of the matters which were alleged in, or could have been alleged in [the case].... In short, we agree with the trial court that it is simply unclear from reading both the proposal language and the language of the attached general release, whether Pool and Spa’s $15,000.00 is meant to include Landlord’s attorney’s fee claim associated with its eviction, or whether the Landlord’s fee claim is excepted from Pool and Spa’s offer. This lack of clarity creates an ambiguity rendering the proposal unenforceable. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger, 42 So.3d 890, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>). We note that, while a stricter compliance
holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable holding that an ambiguity in the proposal for settlement affected the offerees decisionmaking therefore rendering the proposal unenforceable holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt recognizing that terms and conditions of a proposal for settlement should be devoid of ambiguity patent or latent