CREATIVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
J. PENDLETON GAINES, D/B/A PENCO ENTERPRISES, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Creative Property Management appeals a trial court judgment finding it personally liable on a contract with contractor Gaines for apartment complex construction work. The court affirms liability and enforceability of a written contract but reverses the trial court's interest calculation, requiring interest from the contract due date rather than from the date suit was filed.
Creative Property Management was personally liable on the contract because it either failed to disclose its principal or specifically agreed to be personally liable. The letter was sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable written contract subject to the five-year statute of limitations for written contracts. Interest must be calculated from the date the debt was due under the contract, not from the date suit was filed.
[1] A party acting as an agent may be held personally liable on a contract if the principal is not disclosed or if the agent specifically agrees to personal liability.
[2] A letter confirming an agreement may be sufficient to constitute a written contract enforceable under the statute of limitations.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant either did not disclose its principal or that it specifically agreed to be personally liable for the work appellee performed and to support the finding that appellant's letter was sufficiently definite to be enforceable and to constitute a written contract subject to the five year statute of limitations.”
Establishes the evidentiary basis for finding Creative Property Management personally liable and the letter a binding written contract.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGaines, a contractor, contracted with apartment complex owners to perform construction improvements. After a dispute over payment schedule arose and G…
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 Agent Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves questions as to whether an alleged agent was personally liable on a contract; whether a certain letter was sufficient to constitute a written contract within the statute of limitations; and the date from which interest is calculated on sums due under a contract.
Appellee, as contractor, contracted with the owners of an apartment complex to construct certain improvements. After certain work was done, a dispute arose as to a progress payment schedule and appellee ceased work. Thereafter, appellant took over management of the apartment complex and appellant’s agents met with appel-lee and worked out an agreement as to future payments under which appellee would complete the contracted work. Appellant wrote appellee a letter confirming this agreement and appellee completed the work and ultimately sued appellant for an unpaid balance.
Appellant contended (1) appellee’s cause of action was based on an oral contract and was barred by a four year statute of limitations (§ 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1981)) and (2) that appellant was acting only as an agent and was not personally liable.
The trial court held against appellant’s contentions and for appellee, but allowed appellee interest on the contract balance calculated only from the date appellee filed suit. Appellant appeals the trial court findings against it and appellee cross-appeals the denial of interest from the date he was due payment under the contract to the date he instituted suit.
There is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding that appellant either did not disclose its principal or that it specifically agreed to be personally liable for the work appellee performed and to support the finding that appellant’s letter was sufficiently definite to be enforceable and to constitute a written contract subject to the five year statute of limitations. § 95.11(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981).
However, appellee was entitled to interest calculated from the time the debt was due under the contract on which the indebtedness was based. See, e.g., Parker v. Brinson Const. Co., 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1955); English and American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed except as to the allowance of interest on the sum found due appellee, as to which the judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for interest from the contract due date.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
ORFINGER, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Genvest Gen. Invs. v. Lake Nona Corp., 594 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…spective due dates. Florida courts have long held that in actions ex contractu interest is properly awardable from the date a debt becomes due. E.g., Cooper v. Alford, 477 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Creative Property Management, Inc. v. Gaines, 416 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA [*789] 1975); Florida Home Ins. Co. v. Braverman, 163 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Evans v. Borkowski, 139 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA) (interest accrues as a matter of law…
-
Allen v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 782 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1986)…ate the debt was due. Cioffe v. Morris, 676 F. 2d 539 (11th Cir.1982). In actions ex contractu interest is allowable from the time the debt was due under the contract on which the indebtedness was based. Creative Property Management, Inc. v. Gaines, 416 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Therefore the Allens are entitled to interest running from 30 days after the date of the final judgment rather than from the earlier date used by the court. 5. Loss of use The jury awarded $24,000 to the Allens for the loss of…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. Brinson Constr. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1955)
- English & Am. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)