RAFAEL SALAM, A/K/A RAFAAT A. SALAM, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE BENMELECH AND DORY BENMELECH, A/K/A JOSEPH BENMELECH AND DORY F. BENMELECH, APPELLEES
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.
Rafael Salam appeals a directed verdict entered in favor of Jose Benmelech regarding two dishonored checks totaling $200,000. The court reverses, holding that conflicting testimony about whether the checks constituted a bonus under an oral employment contract raised a factual question for the jury, particularly regarding whether performance removed the contract from the statute of frauds.
The directed verdict was improper because substantial evidence existed from which a jury could find that Salam performed under an oral employment contract, thereby removing it from the statute of frauds. Conflicting testimony about the nature and purpose of the checks presented factual questions that must be resolved by a jury, not determined by the court as a matter of law.
[1] A directed verdict is proper only when there is no evidence upon which a jury could lawfully find a verdict for the non-moving party.
[2] Conflicting testimony regarding the nature of a transaction creates a question of fact for the jury.
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“A motion for a directed verdict is proper only when there is no evidence upon which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the non-moving party.”
Establishes the legal standard for when a directed verdict is appropriate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalam managed one of Benmelech's companies in Venezuela from 1986 until resigning on May 25, 1989. Benmelech issued two checks to Salam: the first for…
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 Oral Employment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Rafael Salam, appeals from a directed verdict entered in favor of the defendant, Jose Benmelech. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Benmelech and his brother own numerous companies with offices in Venezuela and Miami, dealing primarily in computer sales. Salam managed one of the companies in Venezuela from 1986 until May 25, 1989, when he resigned. Benmelech executed a check dated May 30, 1989, made payable to Salam in the amount of $100,-000.00. The check was from the account of Galaxia Systems Investments, Inc., one of Benmelech’s companies. The check was dishonored due to insufficient funds..
Jose Benmelech then executed a second check dated June 14,1989, made payable to Salam in the amount of $100,000.00. This check was from the personal joint account of Benmelech and his wife Dory. Salam deposited the second check on June 19, 1989, and it was also dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Salam testified that the checks were given to him as a bonus pursuant to an oral employment contract with Benmelech, while Benmelech claimed that both checks were merely part of a transaction with an unknown third party. Salam sued Benme-lech for the amount of the check plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) from June 1989. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of Benmelech.
Salam appeals contending that the trial court improperly entered a directed verdict in favor of Benmelech where there was sufficient evidence presented to raise an issue as to whether the statute of frauds applies to this case. We agree.
A motion for a directed verdict is proper only when there is no evidence upon which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the non-moving party. Smith v. Burdine’s, Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 198 So. 223 (1940); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Alvarez v. Dade County School Bd., 482 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review dismissed, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986); Kaufman v. A-1 Bus Lines, Inc., 416 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
In the instant case, both sides presented conflicting testimony as to what actually occurred. However, there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find that Salam performed under his oral employment contract, and by so doing, removed the contract from the statute of frauds. See Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Therefore, the issues “should be submitted to the jury as questions of fact and not be taken away to be passed upon by the judge as questions of law.” Brown v. Sims, 538 So. 2d 901, 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), quashed, in part, on other grounds, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1991). For these reasons we find that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Benmelech. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for new trial to resolve the factual issues.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M. David Sims, M.D. v. Brown, 574 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1991)
- Smith v. Smith, 144 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1940)
- R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Sears v. McKENZIE, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Brown v. M. David Sims, M.D., 538 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Rae Kaufman v. A-1 BUS Lines, Inc., 416 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- L. D. H. v. State, 416 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Alvarez v. The Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 482 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)