LANCE HOLDING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LANCE HOLDING COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
PAUL R. ASHE, 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.
Lance Holding Company appealed a judgment requiring it to pay attorney Paul Ashe under an employment contract. The court reversed, holding that Ashe fraudulently misrepresented his qualifications and bar status on his resume, rendering the contract voidable, and that he could not recover on quantum meruit grounds because an attorney should not profit from conduct sufficient to void an agreement.
A contract induced by fraud is voidable. An attorney whose conduct is sufficient to void an agreement should not be allowed to profit from his unprofessional conduct through quantum meruit recovery. The trial court erred in entering judgment for Ashe.
[1] A contract induced by fraud is voidable.
[2] A party is not entitled to recover under a contract if the contract was induced by the party's material misrepresentation.
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“It is a fundamental proposition that a contract induced by fraud is voidable.”
Establishes the core legal principle that voids Ashe's employment contract due to his material misrepresentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul Ashe, a Florida attorney, was suspended from practicing law from October 28, 1982 through April 22, 1986 due to a federal conviction for fraud. A…
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 Unprofessional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Pursuant to motion for rehearing we vacate our opinion herein and substitute the following:
This is an appeal from a judgment finding that the corporate defendants below, Lance Holding Company, a Florida corporation, and Lance Holding Company, a North Carolina corporation, are liable under an employment contract with the appellee, Paul Ashe, a Florida attorney. Ashe filed a complaint against the corporate defendants, and against Burl Lance and Jeter Mooneyham individually,1 alleging that Mooneyham and Lance, as consultants and officers of the Lance corporations, entered into a written contract employing Ashe to render attorney services, and that Ashe performed under the contract until he was wrongfully terminated.
Mooneyham and Lance testified at trial that Ashe was terminated when they discovered his “criminal record” and his suspension from the Florida Bar. Ashe was suspended from the practice of law in Florida from October 28, 1982 through April 22, 1986 because of his conviction in federal court of fraud by wire and interstate transportation of false and forged securities. The record further reveals, without dispute, that Ashe’s resume concealed the suspension and asserted that he had specialized attorney experience in “taxation, bankruptcy, estate planning, securities, real estate and commercial practice for nineteen (19) years ...” The nineteen years specifically purported to encompass the years from 1982 through 1986.
We find that the trial court erred in entering judgment for Ashe in the face of the material misrepresentation he utilized to obtain the employment contract. It is a fundamental proposition that a contract induced by fraud is voidable. 11 Fla. Jur.2d, Contracts § 35. There is no evidence in this case that the defendants were guilty of laches or waived the wrong, and they were fully justified in rescinding the employment contract. Nor are we willing to sustain the judgment below on a quantum meruit rationale for the reasons stated in Jackson v. Griffith, 421 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982): “[A]n attorney displaying conduct sufficient to void an agreement in law should not be allowed to profit from his blatantly unprofessional conduct in equity.”2 See Fla.R.Prof.Conduct, 4-7.-1(a). In view of this determination, the remaining issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal are moot.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANTS, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS BELOW.
SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . Lance and Mooneyham were dismissed from the action by the trial court, an issue raised by the appellee's cross-appeal.
. We recognize that quantum meruit technically is an action at law (assumpsit) based upon a theory of implied contract. See Boyce Construction Corporation v. District Board of Trustees of Valencia Community College, 414 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Nevertheless, equitable principles traditionally have been applied to such actions. See Brownell v. City of St. Peters-burg, 38 F.Supp. 1003, 1007 (S.D.Fla.1941), rev'd on other grounds, 128 F. 2d 721 (5th Cir.1942); Accord. Sharp v. Bowling, 511 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (Assumpsit for monies had and received held an action at law, but grounded in equity). This is so because courts of equity traditionally possessed jurisdiction concurrently with courts of law in constructive fraud cases involving the breach of confidential and fiduciary relationships. Mr. Justice Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence at 47, 164-165, 194-200 (1884).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teague v. Est. OF Herbert D. Hoskins, 709 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1998)…se of some action taken by the personal representative. Instead, they are incurred because of the affirmative action of a third party. We recognize that the district court in Tillman reached a conclusion contrary to our [*1375] reasoning today. See 533 So. 2d 929 (holding that an attorney’s fee award against an estate’s personal representative is a Class 8 priority). The Tillman court stated that “[h]ad the legislature intended any attorney fee taxable against the estate to have a Class 1 priority, it would…
-
Sphinx Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 226 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2002)…e facto” directors and officers. In order to have been a duly elected director or officer, Taylor would have had to be a “de jure” director. Finally, Plaintiffs point out that a contract induced by fraud is voidable. Lance Holding Co. v. Ashe, 533 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). They assert that a contract that is voidable cannot be according to law and/or proper in both substance and form. It is therefore impossible for Taylor to have been “duly” elected. Summing up their argument, they state that if T…
-
Long v. Touizer (S.D. Fla. 2021)…wise, the unjust enrichment claim fails. Id. In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they were fraudulently induced into entering the express contract that exists between the parties, thereby making the contract voidable. See Lance Holding Co. v. Ashe, 533 So. 2d 929, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“It is a fundamental proposition that a contract induced by fraud is voidable”). Under these circumstances, dismissal of Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim would be premature. See Shaheen Real Estate LLC v. Daniel Joseph…
Authorities Cited
- Boyce Constr. Corp. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Valencia Cmty. Coll. f/u/b/o Diversified Design Enters., Inc., 414 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Sharp v. Bowling, 511 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Brownell v. City of ST. Petersburg, 128 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1942)
- Jackson v. Griffith, 421 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)