EARL A. WALD, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD SHENKMAN, ET AL., 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.
Earl Wald appeals a final judgment in a dispute over the dissolution of a professional accounting association. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the parties had reached an oral agreement to modify their shareholders' agreement and distribute assets in a specified manner, rejecting Wald's arguments on appeal.
The court held that substantial, competent evidence supported the trial court's finding of an oral modification agreement; that the oral agreement was partly performed by the parties, making it enforceable to prevent fraud; and that the trial court's allocation of accounts receivable was fully supported by the evidence.
[1] Substantial, competent evidence supports a trial court's finding that parties orally modified an underlying shareholders' agreement.
[2] An oral agreement, in part acted upon by the parties, may be enforced to prevent fraud.
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“substantial, competent evidence was adduced below to support the trial court's finding that the parties orally modified the underlying shareholders' agreement and agreed to distribute the various assets and liabilities of the professional association in a certain manner”
Establishes the evidentiary standard and the court's finding that oral modification was supported by evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWald and Shenkman were parties to a professional association of accountants governed by a shareholders' agreement. The parties allegedly reached an or…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Earl A. Wald from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial in an action to enforce an oral agreement to dissolve a professional association of accountants. The action was initially dismissed without prejudice by the trial court at the conclusion of a non-jury trial; on appeal, this court reversed the dismissal and directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings. Shenkman v. Wald, 609 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Upon remand, the trial court conducted further evidentiary hearings and entered a final judgment; we affirm.
The defendant Wald raises three points on appeal, none of which presents reversible error. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, we conclude that (1) substantial, competent evidence was adduced below to support the trial court’s finding that the parties orally modified the underlying shareholders’ agreement and agreed to distribute the various assets and liabilities of the professional association in a certain manner; (2) such an oral agreement was, in part, acted upon by the parties so that not to enforce the oral modification would work a fraud on the plaintiffs; (3) the trial court’s allocation of the accounts receivable of the professional association was fully supported by the evidence; and (4) no other error has been made to appear. Pathway Fin. v. Miami Int’l Realty Co., 588 So. 2d 1000,1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); King Partitions & Drywall, Inc. v. Donner Enters., Inc., 464 So. 2d 715, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Oceanic Int’l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re THE Matter OF THE Protest OF Election Returns & Absentee Ballots IN the November 4, 707 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…y affected.” Based on our review , of the record, there was certainly ample evidence of fraud to support the findings of the trial court’s Final Judgment. See Peacock v. Wise, 351 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see also generally Wald v. Shenkman, 664 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Estate of Gimbert v. Lamb, 601 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We are confronted with the question of whether the trial court erred in finding that the remedy for the instant absentee voting fraud was to order a new election. We…
-
Lavado v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Auto Fin. Servs., Inc., 711 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ury liability and properly damage liability shall contain limits of not less than $1 million and may be provided by a lessor’s blanket policy.” . Presumably this amendment was prompted by the conclusions in General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Davis, 664 So. 2d 10.25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Bush Leasing, Inc. v. Gallo, 634 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 645 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1994), that a single limit policy of $300,000 for bodily injuries and property damage (.Davis, Bush Leasing) and a single limit p…
Authorities Cited
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- King Partitions & Drywall, Inc. v. Donner Enters., Inc., 464 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Josi Konski v. Mitek Indus., Inc., 588 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Giller v. Giller, 609 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)