CYNTHIA JANINE CROSSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY M. FELDMAN, 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.
The court held that a claim for support based on an oral contract is legally enforceable and not barred by the doctrine of palimony.
Crossen counterclaimed against Feldman, seeking support based on an oral contract where she quit her job during pregnancy in exchange for his support.…
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
PATTERSON, Judge.
Cynthia Crossen appeals from the trial court’s order which dismisses count two of her counterclaim. We reverse.
This case began when Randy Feldman filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking to be declared the father of Crossen’s unborn child. Crossen brought a two-count counterclaim. Count one is an action for paternity pursuant to chapter 742, Florida Statutes (1993). Count two sought to enforce an oral contract between the parties that Feldman would support Crossen during her pregnancy and for a reasonable time thereafter in return for Crossen quitting her job during her pregnancy. Crossen in fact quit her job and thereafter Feldman refused to provide support because Crossen terminated their engagement to marry. Feldman answered the counterclaim and asserted as affirmative defenses the statute of frauds and that the claim was one for “palimony,” which is not a recognized cause of action in this state. The trial court agreed with Feldman’s “palimony” defense and dismissed count two without leave to amend.
Without attempting to define what may or may not be “palimony,” this ease simply involves whether these parties entered into a contract for support, which is something that they are legally capable of doing. See Stevens v. Muse, 562 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). It was therefore error to dismiss count II of the counterclaim. Although argued by the parties, the issue of the statute of frauds is not properly before us because the trial court did not rule on it.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate count two of the counterclaim.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Posik v. Nancy L.R. Layton, 695 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PETERSON, Chief Judge, concurring specially. Partially quoting from Crossen v. Feldman, 673 So. 2d 903 (Fla.2d DCA 1996), “this case simply involves whether [Emma Posik and Nancy L. R. Layton] ... entered into a contract for support, which is something that they are legally capable of doing.” In the instant case, two persons entered into a lifetime…
-
Caryn Heidi Forrest v. Ami RON, 821 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ress or implied agreement, regarding sexual relations.” Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Dietrich v. Winters, 798 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Posik v. Layton, 695 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Crossen v. Feldman, 673 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Stevens v. Muse, 562 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Evans v. Wall, 542 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(court awarded funds to co-habitant on constructive trust theory). A review of the stipulation and the testimony shows that the…
-
Harrison v. Pritchett, 682 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…here is based solely on the application of the statute of frauds to the instant causes of action and in no way addresses the [*653] merits of the appellant’s action. See Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Crossen v. Feldman, 673 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- POE v. Est. OF Gertrude Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Stevens v. Robbyn Muse, 562 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)