KELLER
v.
PENOVICH, ET AL.
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.
Plaintiff sued for breach of an alleged oral two-year employment contract and fraud. The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that the oral employment agreement was unenforceable under Florida's Statute of Frauds and that the fraud claim was an improper indirect attempt to enforce the unenforceable contract.
The oral two-year employment agreement is unenforceable under Florida Statute §725.01 (Statute of Frauds), regardless of plaintiff's alleged reliance. The fraud count cannot be maintained because it constitutes an improper indirect attempt to obtain damages for breach of an unenforceable contract.
[1] An oral employment contract for a term of two years is unenforceable in Florida under the Statute of Frauds, §725.01, regardless of the plaintiff's alleged change of posi…
[2] A claim for fraud arising out of the same circumstances as an unenforceable oral contract, and based indirectly on that contract, cannot be maintained.
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 oral two-year employment agreement is unenforceable in Florida under §725.01 regardless of plaintiff's alleged change of position in reliance thereon.”
Establishes that the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of oral two-year employment contracts and applies even where plaintiff relies on the agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was employed as manager of defendants' restaurant in Palm Beach under an alleged oral two-year employment contract. No written memorandum or…
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 Substantive Vs. Procedural Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter came on to be heard on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
In her amended complaint the plaintiff seeks damages from the defendants on two grounds — (1) the breach by the defendants of an oral two-year employment contract under which the defendants employed the plaintiff as manager of the corporate defendant’s restaurant in Palm Beach, and (2) the fraud of the defendants in causing the plaintiff to accept the two-year oral contract.
It is established by the verified complaint, the deposition of the plaintiff, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s witness, and the records and files herein, and no genuine issue remains in connection therewith, that the plaintiff is relying upon an oral two-year employment agreement and that there is no note or memorandum thereof signed by the defendants or either of them. It is further established' *57by the plaintiff’s own testimony on deposition, and no genuine issue remains in connection therewith, that such agreement as was reached between the parties was reached in Florida.
Because the agreement between the parties was entered into in Florida, Florida law controls in all respects. However, even if the oral agreement were entered into in Maryland, the court finds that its enforceability in Florida is to be determined under Florida procedural law, and that the Florida Statutes of Frauds, §725.01, is procedural. Talmudical Academy of Baltimore v. Harris, 238 So.2d 161 (3d D.C.A. Fla. 1970); Fletcher v. Williams, 153 So.2d 759 (1st D.C.A. Fla. 1963).
The oral two-year employment agreement is unenforceable in Florida under §725.01 regardless of plaintiff’s alleged change of position in reliance thereon. Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, 190 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1966). The count in fraud arose out of the same circumstances and is based indirectly on the alleged oral contract; accordingly, as stated by the Florida Supreme Court, it “is simply an attempt in an indirect manner to obtain damages for breach of the contract... [and] cannot be maintained.” Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1953).
In view of the foregoing, the court finds it unnecessary to determine whether the oral contract would be enforceable in Maryland if suit were brought there, and whether the Maryland Statute of Frauds, which appears similar to the Florida statute, is procedural or substantive in nature.
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be tried herein, and that the defendants are entitled to, and are hereby granted, summary judgment on all counts. All other pending motions herein are moot and are denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953)
- Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 190 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1966)
- Fletcher v. Williams, 153 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Talmudical Acad. OF Baltimore v. Harris, 238 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)