VIVIAN S. HATCHER AND JIMMY HATCHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN S. MILLER, JR., 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.
Hatcher appealed a summary judgment in favor of his attorney Miller for $2,500 in unpaid legal fees. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that when no time or indefinite time is specified for payment, the law implies performance within a reasonable time, making summary judgment appropriate.
The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because when no time or an indeterminate time is specified for performance of an act, the law implies that the act will be performed within a reasonable time, making the debt immediately due.
[1] When no time or an indeterminate or indefinite time is specified for the performance of an act, the law implies that such act will be performed within a reasonable time.
[2] A party's admission of owing a debt, without denial of its present obligation, supports summary judgment for the amount admitted.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when no time or an indeterminate or indefinite time is specified for the performance of an act, the law implies that such act will be performed within a reasonable time”
Establishes the legal principle supporting summary judgment for immediate payment of the debt
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHatcher and Miller had a dispute over $5,000 in legal fees. Miller sued to collect the fees. Hatcher admitted owing $2,500 but claimed they agreed the…
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 Reasonable Time For Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Hatcher seeks review of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Miller in the amount of $2,500. We affirm.
This case arose out of a dispute between Hatcher and Miller, his lawyer, over $5,000 in legal fees. After his attempts to collect the fees by other means failed, Miller filed suit against Hatcher. Hatcher filed an answer in which he admitted that he owed Miller $2,500 but alleged that they agreed that the money would not be due until some indefinite time in the future when Hatcher was better able to pay. He also asserted a counterclaim against Miller for abuse of process. The trial court rendered summary judgment for Miller on the counterclaim, and that ruling was affirmed by this Court. Hatcher v. Miller, 392 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Hatcher continued to file motions and to take numerous depositions relating to his counterclaim. Miller meanwhile moved for and obtained summary judgment in the amount of $2,500 since Hatcher did not deny that he owed that amount.
Hatcher argues on appeal, as he did below, that the rendering of summary judgment denied him his right to trial by jury on the issue of whether the money is due now or at some indefinite time in the future. We are in accord with the view of the trial court that when no time or an indeterminate or indefinite time is specified for the performance of an act, the law implies that such act will be performed within a reasonable time. Doolittle v. Fruehauf Corporation, 332 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.
Hatcher also raises six other points, none of which merit discussion since they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, that is, whether the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment against Hatcher for the $2,500 which he has admitted all along that he owes.
Miller has moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1981). We find that Hatcher has failed to raise a single justiciable issue and that his stubbornly litigious actions have resulted in a waste of judicial resources. Clearly, whatever benefits Miller may have hoped to derive from the lower court judgment have been significantly diminished by the cost of this appeal. We therefore grant a fee of $2,000 to Miller to help defray that cost. Castaway Lounge of Bay County, Inc. v. Reid, 411 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Arturo A. Munder & 444 Inverrary Corp. v. Circle ONE Condo., Inc., 596 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ent/sole stockholder to personal liability absent some basis for piercing the corporate veil. No such basis has been alleged in the case at bar. Several courts have grappled with similar problems. In Olympian West Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Kramer, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983), the Third District held that the corporate developer-builder, serving as a director, of the condominium association prior to assumption of control by the unit owners, was not personally liable f…
-
Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…0 or as trustee of the Conrad Trusts in 2013, the real party in interest on each side remains the same. The samé issues are being litigated on the same notes, based on identical facts. See e.g., Olympian West Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kramer, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1983) (holding that the prior dismissal with prejudice of these named individuals bars the present action against them under familiar principles of res judicata, notwithstanding that in this action th…
-
Sonny BOY, L.L.C. v. Bhagwan Asnani, 879 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1977), held that a director guilty of self-dealing may be held liable to the association for the amount by which he or she was unjustly enriched. Olympian West Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Kramer, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) held that developer-appointed directors are not personally liable to the association for the existence or failure to correct construction defects in the building caused by the developer. It states (rather [*34] tersely) that no br…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Doolittle v. Fruehauf Corp., 332 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- The Castaway Lounge OF BAY Cnty., Inc. v. Reid, 411 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)