NONA GRANT SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Nona Smith, former president and CEO of an insurance agency, appealed a decision denying her unemployment compensation after she resigned following a forced share buyout under a shareholder agreement. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Smith voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause attributable to the employer.
Smith was not entitled to unemployment compensation because she voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause attributable to the company. The shareholder agreement clearly required resignation upon being bought out, and Smith initiated the process by making the tender offer knowing the consequences.
[1] An unemployment compensation award may be affirmed if the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision is not clearly erroneous and is supported by competent substantial ev…
[2] A voluntary termination of employment without good cause attributable to the employer disqualifies an individual from receiving unemployment compensation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The decision of the UAC may not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous and unsupported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for unemployment compensation decisions in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith and O'Brien were the only two shareholders of Arcturus, Inc., an insurance agency. Their shareholder agreement allowed either party to make a te…
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 Voluntary Termination Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Nona Grant Smith appeals the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (“UAC”) which affirmed the decision of an appeals referee reversing her unemployment compensation award. We affirm.
Smith was President and CEO of Arcturus, Inc., an insurance agency. She and Theresa O’Brien were the only two shareholders in the company. Under their shareholder agreement, either party could make a tender offer to buy the other’s shares at any time. If the offeree rejected the offer, she would then have to purchase the offeror’s shares. In that event, the agreement specified that the person whose shares were purchased would have to resign as officer of the company.
In December 1995, Smith offered to buy O’Brien’s shares. O’Brien declined the offer and, pursuant to the shareholder agreement, purchased Smith’s shares for $211,375. Smith resigned as President and CEO, in writing, on 2 February 1996. She subsequently applied for and was deemed entitled to unemployment compensation. Areturus, Inc. appealed the determination.
At the hearing before an appeals referee, Smith and O’Brien appeared by telephone. Smith testified that she attempted to buy O’Brien’s shares because of recurring problems between O’Brien and other company employees. She also testified that she did not interpret the shareholder agreement to require her to completely terminate her employment with the company. Rather, she understood that she only had to resign her position as an officer. Smith stated further that O’Brien did not offer her another position within the company. O’Brien, on the other hand, testified that both parties understood that a resignation under the terms of the shareholder agreement meant a complete severance. She confirmed that Smith was not offered another position.
However, she testified, she offered to let Smith purchase her “book of business” so that she could service those accounts after leaving the com pany. Smith denied receiving such an offer. The appeals referee determined that Smith voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause attributable to the company and was therefore unentitled to unemployment compensation. The UAC affirmed the referee’s decision.
The decision of the UAC may not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous and unsupported by competent substantial evidence. SKF Management v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 664 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
We find no basis on which to reverse the decision.
The testimony heard by the referee showed that the agreement between Smith and O’Brien required the resignation of either party upon being bought out. Smith offered to buy O’Brien’s shares knowing that if her offer was rejected, she would then have to sell her shares and resign. O’Brien testified that both parties understood that such a resignation would terminate that party’s affiliation with Arcturus, Inc. Although Smith’s testimony was conflicting, the referee was entitled to, and did, resolve evidentiary disputes in the company’s favor. Bell v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n 645 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
The evidence therefore supports the referee’s legal conclusion that Smith’s-termination was voluntary and without good cause attributable to Arcturus, Inc. AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tallahassee Primary Care Assocs. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 930 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…rgency Transport, 725 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). This court reviews the UAC’s [*826] decision to determine whether it is clearly erroneous and whether it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 698 So. 2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Courts recognize that excessive, unauthorized absences can constitute misconduct because the absences “presumptively hampers the operation of a business and [are] inherently detrimental to an employer.” Tallahassee Housin…
-
Short v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 868 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…[*568] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2003); Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n 698 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).…
-
Yiannopoulos v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 892 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…is not in a position to overturn them. Bell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 645 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA1994). The referee was entitled to, and did, resolve eviden-tiary disputes in the company’s favor. [*1176] Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 698 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Yiannopoulos cites Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 744 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which the claimant was injured on the job and required light-duty work. The main office of the employer informed him th…
Authorities Cited
- SKF Mgmt. & Palace Mgmt. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Bell v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 645 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)