IN RE ESTATE OF FRED COHEN AND FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, A BANKING CORP., AS EXECUTOR AND/OR ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FRED COHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHET HOLLAND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a judgment against an estate for personal services rendered to the decedent, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the decedent contracted in his individual capacity rather than as a corporate agent.
When substantial evidence supports a jury's finding that a decedent contracted in his individual capacity, the court cannot interfere with that determination.
[1] When an oral contract with a decedent is at issue and the service provider cannot testify due to the Dead Man's Statute, substantial evidence from other sources supportin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChet Holland, a marine surveyor and consultant, sued the estate of Fred Cohen for payment of personal services. The contract was oral, and Holland cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employment Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The defendant, the executor of the estate of Fred Cohen, appeals from a final judgment entered against the estate upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Chet Holland, in an action for personal services rendered by Holland as a marine surveyor and consultant. The appellant primarily argues that there is no competent evidence 1 that Holland was employed by Cohen personally during his lifetime, rather than by one or more corporate entities in which Cohen had interests and for which he may have been acting in hiring the plaintiff. We disagree. Our review of the record reveals that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have, as it did, properly concluded that Cohen contracted in his individual capacity and thus that he was individually liable upon Holland’s employment agreement. Smith v. Texas Co., 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585 (1933); Financial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Cooperative Assn., 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 219 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1968); see Bryce v. Bull, 106 Fla. 336, 143 So. 409 (1932); I. W. Phillips & Co. v. Hall, 99 Fla. 1206, 128 So. 635 (1930). Since this is the case, we of course have no authority to interfere with the jury’s determination. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977).
Affirmed.
. The contract was an oral one, and Holland himself could not testify as to his negotiations with Cohen because of the Dead Man’s Statute, Sec. 90.05, Fla.Stat. (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hunt v. Palm Springs General Hospital, Inc., 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Where substantial evidence supports a jury determination, an appellate court lacks authority to interfere. Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). An appellate court should not reevaluate evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977). We therefore approve the jury determination that Landry unjus…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Frank, 442 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…was not contacted by Put-ney for confirmation prior to the appearance of the article. Controlling legal principles preclude us from disturbing the jury’s determination. Helman; Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The Herald also asserts that the statements are substantially true and are therefore not libelous even if partially inaccurate. It maintains that because it announced the verdict in Frank’s favor, it was not subject to liability…
-
First Nat'l Bank OF the Upper Keys v. Caribe Equip. Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…. 2d 637 (1944); United States Rubber Products, Inc. v. Clark, 145 Fla. 631, 200 So. 385 (1941); and we may not interfere with its resolution of the issue. Holman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Reserve Ins. [*20] Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 209 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Phillips v. Hall, 99 Fla. 1206 (Fla. 1930)
- Bryce v. Bull, 106 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1932)
- Hernandez v. State, 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Cap. Fin. Corp. v. Giles, 111 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1933)
- Smith v. Tex. Co., 111 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1933)
- Farrar v. Keyser, 219 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1968)
- Fin. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Coop. Ass'n, 219 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1968)