SERGIO CABANAS, APPELLANT,
v.
WOMACK & BASS, P.A., 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.
Cabanas, a former employee of Womack & Bass, P.A., appeals a summary judgment dismissing his breach of employment agreement claim. The court reversed, holding that the action was timely filed under the four-year statute of limitations for non-wage claims and was not barred by the statute of frauds because the employment was terminable at will.
The court held that claims for unpaid bonuses are not suits for wages under section 95.11(4)(c) but are instead governed by the four-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(3)(k), making Cabanas' timely-filed action not barred by limitations. The court also held that the statute of frauds does not apply because the employment was terminable at will and Cabanas fully performed his obligations.
[1] An action by a salaried employee for an unpaid bonus is not a suit for wages for purposes of the two-year statute of limitations, but rather is governed by the four-year…
[2] Oral employment contracts that are terminable at will by either party for an indefinite period of duration do not fall under the statute of frauds.
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 action by an executive, a salaried employee, for an unpaid bonus was not a suit for wages for purposes of section 95.11(4)(c). Rather, the correct statute of limitations governing these actions is the four-year provision of section 95.11(3)(k).”
Establishes that bonus claims are governed by the four-year statute of limitations, not the two-year wage statute of limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCabanas was hired by Womack & Bass on May 29, 1992, with an oral promise of a $5,000 raise and leased car after six months of probation, plus a 10% bo…
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 Breach Of Employment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Sergio Cabanas appeals a final summary judgment in his breach of employment agreement action against Womack & Bass, P.A. We reverse.
Cabanas was employed by Womack & Bass, P.A., on May 29,1992. The firm orally promised Cabanas that after completing six months of probation he would receive a $5000 raise and a leased car at the firm’s expense. Additionally, Cabanas was promised, as a bonus, ten percent of billings over $50,000 generated by Cabanas in the year, at the time the monies were collected.
On November 29, 1992, after six months had elapsed, the firm told Cabanas he would have to work for a full year before he would receive the salary increase or the car. In June 1993, the raise and the.car were not provided. In September 1993,. Cabanas left the firm with the understanding that bonus payments based on collected billings would continue. However, on March 4, 1994, the firm notified Cabanas by letter that it would remit no further bonus payments to him.
Cabanas filed a lawsuit in February 1995 to recover damages for breach of the agreement. Womack & Bass filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), and: the statute of frauds. The trial court granted the motion.
In Nealon v. Right Human Resource Consultants, Inc., 669 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), this court clearly held that an action by an executive, a salaried employee, for an unpaid bonus was not a suit for wages for purposes of section 95.11(4)(c). Rather, the correct statute of limitations governing these actions is the four-year provision of section 95.11(3)(k). Following the holding in Nealon, Cabanas’ action was timely brought under section 95.11(3)(k) and is not barred.
Neither is this claim barred by the statute of frauds. Contracts for employment which are terminable at will by either party for an indefinite period of duration do not fall under the statute of frauds. See Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Cabanas fully performed under the oral employment agreement, removing this case from purview of the statute of frauds. Av-Med, Inc.. Here, as in Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, summary judgment based on the statute of frauds is improper because nothing in the record supports the conclusion that Cabanas was hired to perform work which would'require performance for a period of time exceeding one year. Hence, on this ground too, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was error and must be reversed.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richey v. Modular Designs, Inc., 879 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ommissions, we agree with him that, as a salaried employee suing for unpaid commissions, the four-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(3)(k), Florida Statutes (2000) is applicable to his claim for commissions. Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 706 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Barnes Surgical Specialties, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 549 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The record contains no evidence that the four-year statute of limitations bars recovery here. See Town of Miami Springs v. Lawrence, 102…
-
LaRUE v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc., 97 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…opcich, 454 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), that the oral employment agreement, which was of indefinite duration and therefore capable of performance within one year, was not within the statute of frauds. Likewise, in Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, 706 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), this Court found that the statute of frauds did not bar Cabanas’ breach of contract claim where the oral employment contract was for an indefinite time, terminable at will by either party, and it had been fully performed by C…
-
Browning v. Poirier, 113 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…y because salaried employee’s contract was terminable at will, with indefinite duration; his claim was for commissions earned for past services and there was no evidence contract was intended to last beyond one year); Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 706 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 8d DCA 1998) (finding that statute of frauds did not bar claim for breach of oral employment contract for indefinite time, that was terminable at will by either party, which had been fully performed by employee, where employee was hired for wo…
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
- Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Nealon v. Right Human Res. Consultants, Inc., 669 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)