ROSE VETRO, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
An at-will employee sued her employer for unpaid longevity benefits under a written employment contract. The employer obtained summary judgment on grounds that it fully performed under the non-ambiguous contract and the statute of limitations had expired. The court affirmed, finding the employer had fully performed by timely paying the contractual salary increases.
The employer fully performed the non-ambiguous provision of the contract by timely paying the 'one time' increases in the employee's base salary after ten and fifteen years of continuous service. The court did not reach the statute of limitations issue, as full performance by the employer disposed of the claim.
[1] An employment contract may be viewed as analogous to an installment contract, allowing claims for underpayments within the statute of limitations period.
[2] An employer fully performs a non-ambiguous contract provision by timely paying "one time" increases in base salary as stipulated.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Viewing the ongoing employment contract as analogous to an installment contract, we are inclined to agree with the employee's position that she was entitled to maintain a claim for underpayments of salary, within the statute of limitations period.”
The court recognizes the employee's legal theory regarding divisible employment contracts but does not ultimately rely on it to decide the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose Vetro was a salaried, at-will employee of the City of Coral Springs. The employment contract provided for 'one time' increases in base salary aft…
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 At-Will Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
This case involves a salaried, at-will employee who sued her employer to recover longevity benefits under a written contract. The employer obtained final summary judgment on two grounds: that the employer had fully performed under the non-ambiguous contract and that the statute of limitations had run on the employee’s claim.
Viewing the ongoing employment contract as analogous to an installment contract, we are inclined to agree with the employee’s position that she was entitled to maintain a claim for underpayments of salary, within the statute of limitations period. See Hannett v. Bryan, 640 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Bishop v. State, Div. of Ret., 413 So. 2d 776, 777-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Habib v. Raytheon Co., 616 F. 2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1980); Stone v. City of Phila., 1987 WL 8538, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 27, 1987) (observing that “[ejmployment contracts — in which one party’s performance of services and the other party’s payment of compensation are readily apportionable into individual segments — tend to be divisible”); Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 559 S.E. 2d 450, 453 (2002); Piedmont Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 103 Ga.App. 225, 119 S.E. 2d 63, 71-72 (1961); Collins v. Summers Hardware & Supply Co., 88 S.W. 3d 192, 197 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002); Greene v. THGC, Inc., 915 S.W. 2d 809, 811 (Tenn.App.Ct.1996); 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:20 (4th ed. 2000).
However, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue because we agree with the employer that it fully performed the non-ambiguous provision of the contract by timely paying the “one time” increases in the employee’s base salary after ten and fifteen years of the employee’s continuous service.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Access Ins. Planners, Inc. v. GEE, 175 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…t payment contract in Isaacs v. Deutsch, 80 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1955), we held that the statute of limitations for each payment due the. plaintiff began to run when a syndication fee payment was made. Id.) see also Vetro v. City of Coral [*925] Springs, 901 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Bishop v. State, Div. of Ret., 413 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Greene v. Bwrsey, 733 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (involving monthly installment payments on a promissory note and holding that the statute of limitations ha…
Authorities Cited
- Bishop v. State, 413 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Mohamed Habib & Middle E. Servs. v. Raytheon Co. & Raytheon Servs. Co., 616 F.2d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
- Hannett v. Bryan, 640 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)