part, he did not dispute the court clerk’s decision to dismiss the judgment of child support delinquency or the state’s decision to reinstate his driver’s license, which had been suspended because of the back child support owed. Further, he made no effort in three years to set his petition for modification for hearing until the trial court noticed that it would be sua sponte dismissed. The husband’s argument that there was no agreement because it was not reduced to writing is unpersuasive. Under similar facts, this court has.rejected the same argument. See Cohen v. Cohen, 629 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Farrell v. Farrell, 661 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Loss v. Loss, 608 So.2d 39, 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Roskind v. Roskind, 552 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>); Silva v. Silva, 467 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA
holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract holding that it is not 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 holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record holding that a stipulation properly entered into the record where there is a clear understanding of the finality of that agreement is an effective and enforceable settlement notwithstanding that it is subject to reduction to a written document