VELVA DEWACHTER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAELA G. SCOTT, M.D., 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.
Velva Dewachter appealed a summary judgment dismissing her fraud claim against her former employer, Dr. Michaela Scott, for allegedly inducing her into an oral employment contract promising lifetime or age-65 employment. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that claims based on oral lifetime employment contracts are barred because such contracts are terminable at will, and the fraud claim was merely an attempt to circumvent this bar.
The court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because an oral contract for lifetime employment is terminable at will and unenforceable, and Dewachter's fraud claim was barred as an improper attempt to circumvent the bar to breach of contract actions on such contracts.
[1] An oral contract for lifetime employment is terminable at will.
[2] A claim of fraud in the inducement to enter an oral contract for lifetime employment is barred if it attempts to circumvent the rule that such contracts are terminable at…
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“an oral contract for lifetime employment is terminable at will”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that bars enforcement of oral lifetime employment contracts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDewachter left her secure full-time position at Indian River Hospital after Dr. Scott orally promised her lifetime employment or employment until age …
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 Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Velva Dewachter appeals from a summary final judgment entered against her in an action against her former employer, Dr. Mi-chaela Scott, for fraud in inducing her into entering an oral contract for lifetime employment. We affirm. With regard to Dr. Scott’s cross-appeal, we reverse the denial of costs but affirm the denial of attorney’s fees.
In her second amended complaint, Dewachter alleged that Dr. Scott induced her to leave her secure full time employment at Indian River Hospital by orally promising her lifetime employment or employment until she reached the age of sixty-five (65).
De-waehter claimed Dr. Scott fraudulently inducing her to join her staff by failing to disclose that Dr. Scott terminated new employees who met with disapproval from other employees. Rather, Dewachter contends that Dr. Scott told her that any complaints would be referred to Scott for resolution. We believe that the trial court correctly granted summary final judgment for the defendant, based on these allegations because an oral contract for lifetime employment is terminable at will. See Smith v. Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983); Maguire v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, Georgia, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (without an employment contract specifically obligating both employer and employee for definite term of employment, employment is considered to be indefinite and terminable at will of either party; no action may be maintained for breach of contract under those circumstances).
Even though Dewachter couched her complaint as fraud in the inducement rather than breach of contract, we believe her claim is still barred as it attempts to circumvent the bar to a breach of contract action based on an oral contract terminable at will. Since the parties clearly cannot be restored to the status quo that existed before the alleged contract, as might be sought in an action based on fraud in the inducement, the measure of damages De-wachter sought here would be the same as breach of contract damages. See Canell v. Areola Housing Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953) (court stated that where a contract is within the statute of frauds and unenforceable, action for damages cannot be maintained on ground of fraud in refusing to perform contract, recognizing that the plaintiffs action for fraud and deceit was simply an attempt to obtain damages for breach of contract).
Thus, we hold the trial court correctly granted summary final judgement in Dr. Scott’s favor. We also agree with Dr. Scott’s argument on cross-appeal that as the prevailing party she is entitled to recover court costs. See Governing Board of St. Johns River Management Dist. v. The Lake Pickett, Ltd., 543 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (every party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of court costs to Dr. Scott. We do, however, affirm the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993).
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
India Am. Trading Co., Inc. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…fendant may not have intended to perform the oral contract at the time when he made the oral promise, the action for fraud and deceit could not be maintained based on the statute of frauds. Canell, 65 So. 2d at 851. Similarly, in Dewachter v. Scott, 657 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that by couching a claim as fraud in the inducement, it would still be barred by the statute of frauds as the measure of damages would be the same as the damages for a breach of contract…
-
Puff 'N Stuff OF Winter Park, Inc. v. Bell, 683 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…mitment (even though it eventually did), appellants urge that the bank is liable because of its intentional tort of fraudulent inducement. Some courts are beginning to look more closely at fraud in the inducement allegations. In Dewachter v. Scott, 657 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the court was concerned with a fraud in the inducement action brought when the contract itself was unenforceable. The court stated: We believe that the trial court correctly granted summary final judgment for the defendant, bas…
-
J.R.D. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dulin, 883 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ant’s argument that fraud in the inducement cannot lie when employment is at will and terminable at any time. There is no reason why even at-will employment cannot be fraudulently induced. Moreover, we think defendant has misread Dewachter v. Scott, 657 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In that case, the problem was that the fraud claim was used as a device to avoid the at-will rule. The claimant there had alleged a breach of a promise of employment for life. The claimant also sought to recover by a cause of ac…
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
- Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
- Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953)
- Governing Bd. of the ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Lake Pickett Ltd., 543 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Jaffe v. Adolph Schwartz, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- West v. State, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)