MARVIN KATZ AND ESTETICA SALONS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT WOLTIN AND LOUIE LOUIE, INC., 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.
Marvin Katz sued Robert Woltin and Louie Louie, Inc. for breach of contract and related claims arising from an alleged agreement to provide Katz with stock ownership in a restaurant. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the underlying contract was illegal because Florida law prohibits persons convicted of felonies from having an interest in liquor licenses, and therefore no cause of action could be based on an illegal contract.
An illegal contract cannot be the basis of a cause of action either in law or in equity. Because the underlying agreement to provide Katz with stock was illegal under Florida law, all causes of action arising from that agreement were properly dismissed.
[1] An illegal contract cannot be the basis of a cause of action in law or in equity.
[2] Agreements in violation of public policy are void and establish no legitimate bond between the parties.
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 illegal contract cannot be the basis of a cause of action either in law or in equity”
Establishes the core legal principle that governs the entire appeal and precludes all of Katz's claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Woltin proposed forming a partnership with Marvin Katz, who operated a hair salon, to open a restaurant at that location. Woltin offered Katz a…
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 Stock Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of appellees, finding that all causes of action pled were based upon an illegal contract which the courts would not enforce. In fine with abundant authority, we affirm the trial court, concluding that an illegal contract cannot be the basis of a cause of action either in law or in equity.
According to the allegations of the complaint, appellee Robert Woltin approached appellant Marvin Katz, who operated a hair salon in Fort Lauderdale on leased premises, and proposed forming a partnership to open a restaurant in the location of the salon. Woltin offered to make Katz a 25% shareholder in the restaurant, which would be known as “Louie, Louie.” Katz agreed, and Louie Louie was incorporated with Woltin being named the sole director. Woltin also deposited $10,000 into the salon account to pay for various expenses to transform the property into a restaurant. Woltin persuaded Katz to assign the lease of the restaurant to the corporation and agreed to give Katz stock certificates representing his ownership interest in the restaurant. Although Katz assigned the lease to the restaurant, he did not receive the stock certificates. Shortly thereafter, Woltin reneged on his promise and refused to tender any stock to Katz and fired him from his job at .the restaurant.
As a result, Katz filed suit against Wol-tin and Louie Louie making various claims including breach of a fiduciary duty based upon the alleged partnership between them, fraudulent inducement to assign the lease, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and rescission. All causes of action arose out of the agreement for Katz to obtain an interest in Louie Louie.
In his last amended complaint, Katz alleged that he was under a legal disability that precluded him from owning stock himself in the corporation because he had been convicted of a felony within the past fifteen years. He testified in his deposition that he intended to put the stock in his daughter’s name. However, because Florida law prohibits a person convicted of a felony to have an interest in a liquor license, and the restaurant had a liquor license, both parties agreed that neither Katz nor his daughter could legally own the stock. See §§ 561.15, 561.17, Fla. Stat. (1997); Robbie’s Yum Yum Tree West, Inc. v. Div. of Beverage, Dept. of Business Regulation, 830 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Thus, the agreement to sell Katz stock violated Florida law.
The contract being illegal, no action may be brought on it, whether in law or in equity. As was said in Local No. 234 of United Ass’n of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818, 823 (Fla.1953):
[ajgreements in violation of public policy are void because they have no legal sanction and establish no legitimate bond between the parties. (Citation omitted). Because of this the defendant may assert the invalidity of the contract even though he is a participator in the wrong. This is so for the reason that one who has entered into a contract or undertaking which’ is violative of public policy owes to the public the continuing duty of withdrawing from such an agreement.
See also Hoffman v. Boyd, 698 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Castro v. Sangles, 687 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
As all counts at issue in this appeal were based upon an illegal agreement, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duncan v. Kasim, Inc., 810 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…er, for purposes of summary judgment, issues of fact regarding her unjust enrichment and conversion counts remained to be resolved unless they are barred by the illegality of Duncan’s contract to manage the lounge. Kasim argues that Katz v. Woltin, 765 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), is controlling. In that case, Katz entered into a contract with Woltin to open a restaurant in a location leased to Katz as a hair salon. Katz would assign the lease to a corporation owned by Woltin, and Woltin would give Katz s…
-
ONE Harbor Fin. Ltd. Co. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…). The right to contract is.subject to the limitation that the agreement must be legal. In general, Florida courts are under no obligation to discern the intent of the parties from language contained within an illegal contract. E.g., Katz v. Woltin, 765 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (recognizing that where a contract is illegal, no action may be brought on it, whether in law or in equity); Castro v. Sangles, 637 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that no action may be maintained on an illegal agreement).…
-
L & L Doc's, L.L.C. v. Florida Division OF Alcoholic Beverages AND Tobacco, 882 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…’ respective countries is irrelevant.' Moreover, even if the slot machines and the revenues gained from them had been a subject of the contract, buyers would still have no action on the. contract because such activity is illegal. See Katz v. Woltin, 765 So. 2d 279, 280-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (recognizing that agreements in violation [*516] of public policy are void and unenforceable). Consequently, with respect to all issues raised, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and final judgment in…
Authorities Cited
- Local NO. 234 OF United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. OF United States & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1953)
- Hoffman v. Boyd, 698 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Pinnacle Ins. Co. v. Hon. Thomas G. Freeman, 687 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)