STEPHANIE L. ELLIOT, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL H. WINSLOW, JR., 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.
Stephanie Elliot appealed the dismissal of her wage claim against attorney Carl Winslow, arguing the trial court wrongly applied the statute of frauds to bar enforcement of their oral employment agreement. The court reversed, holding that oral employment agreements for indefinite periods fall outside the statute of frauds and are enforceable.
The statute of frauds does not bar enforcement of an oral employment agreement for an indefinite period. A contract is only within the statute of frauds if it could not possibly be performed within one year.
[1] An employment agreement for an indefinite period is not barred by the statute of frauds.
[2] The statute of frauds requires agreements not to be performed within one year to be in writing.
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“the statute of frauds was not a bar to the suit, reasoning: While the parties may have expected Westfall to remain with Gulf Solar for some unknown period of time, Gulf Solar had no obligation to retain Westfall's services and Westfall had no obligation to remain in Gulf Solar's employment for any definite time period.”
Establishes that employment contracts for indefinite periods are not subject to the statute of frauds because neither party has an obligation to perform for a definite term exceeding one year.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElliot was employed by Winslow, an attorney, to prepare personal injury lawsuit files. After a salary dispute led to her departure, Elliot sued to rec…
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 Employment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stephanie L. Elliot appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against Carl H. Winslow, Jr., P.A., to recover unpaid wages. We reverse because, under our controlling precedent, the statute of frauds does not bar enforcement of an employment agreement for an indefinite period.
Elliot sued Winslow, a practicing attorney, alleging that he employed her to prepare personal injury lawsuit files for him. Elliot claimed that she left Winslow’s employ after a confrontation ensued over her salary and that, at the time of her disengagement, Winslow owed her $22,412 in salary and bonuses pursuant to their employment agreement. The trial court granted Winslow’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint based on the statute of frauds defense that Winslow raised in his answer. The statute of frauds provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year ... unless the agreement ... or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.... ” § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (1997). In Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we addressed the application of this statute in a suit to recover wages due under an oral employment agreement. We held that the statute of frauds was not a bar to the suit, reasoning:
While the parties may have expected Westfall to remain with Gulf Solar for some unknown period of time, Gulf Solar had no obligation to retain Westfall’s services and Westfall had no obligation to remain in Gulf Solar’s employment for any definite time period. Apparently, Westfall would be retained by Gulf Solar for as long as his performance merited his retention in the view of Gulf Solar. Id. at 365.
This reasoning was followed by the Fourth District in Byam v. Klopcich, 454 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which also held that an employment contract for an indefinite period was not within the statute of frauds:
Such a contract is not within the Statute of Frauds because nothing indicates that the contract was other than a contract for an indefinite period. To construe the contract otherwise would be tantamount to permitting a person, in good faith reliance upon another’s promise to pay, to work for almost a full year without compensation for his labor. The general rule is that an oral contract for an indefinite time is not barred by the Statute of Frauds. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 130, comment (a) (1981); Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937). Only if a contract could not possibly be performed within one year would it fall within the statute. Yates; Gulf Solar. Id. at 721; see also Hesston Corp. v. Roche, 599 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“a promise to employ someone for five years, two years, or even thirteen months has to be in writing in order to be enforceable, but a promise to employ someone for their entire life does not” since time of death is uncertain).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaRUE v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc., 97 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…y perform his part of the agreement within one year and if so, whether he did fully perform within a year, and holding that, absent such a showing, the agreement would be barred by the statute of frauds); [*256] Elliot v. Carl H. Winslow, Jr., P.A., 737 So. 2d 609, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[U]n-der our controlling precedent, the statute of frauds does not bar enforcement of an employment agreement for an indefinite period.”); AV-MED, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67, 68-69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that an emp…
-
Browning v. Poirier, 128 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…performance within one year is possible); Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (only contract incapable of performance within one year falls within statute of frauds); Elliot v. Carl H. Winslow, Jr., P.A., 737 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Yates for proposition that “[o]nly if a contract could not possibly be performed within one year would it fall within the statute”); Wilcox v. Lang Equities, Inc., 588 So. 2d 318, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (contract that…
-
Martinez v. Lieberman, 920 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…re is nothing in the pleadings to establish that the partnership was not to be performed within a year. At best, this was an oral contract for an indefinite time which is not barred by the Statute of Frauds. See Elliot v. Carl H. Winslow, Jr., P.A., 737 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1937)
- Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Sentry Ins. v. Est. of Robert F. Richards, 454 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Hesston Corp. v. Roche, 599 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)