DANELIA GOMEZ
v.
CARLOS GOMEZ
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 oral joint venture agreement concerning real property is barred by Florida's statute of frauds when the parties did not agree to share in net profits, but claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust are not subject to the statute of frauds and may proceed.
[1] An oral joint venture agreement to acquire, maintain, and sell real property is barred by Florida's statute of frauds when the parties did not agree that all parties woul…
[2] Claims for unjust enrichment and requests for imposition of a constructive trust are not subject to Florida's statute of frauds and may proceed despite the unenforceabili…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“While the agreement may meet one or even several elements of the [joint venture] test, it clearly does not meet all of them.”
Court explaining why the alleged joint venture agreement failed despite not being entirely barred by statute of frauds
Appellants Danelia Gomez and Odell Landeros sued Carlos Gomez alleging breach of an oral joint venture agreement to acquire, maintain, and sell real p…
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 Joint Venture cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 24, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1319 Lower Tribunal No. 20-7265
________________
Danelia Gomez, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Carlos Gomez,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts, Judge. Law Office of Mark A. Kamilar, and Mark A. Kamilar, for appellants. Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo M. Corona and Michelle Denis, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Citing exclusively to Florida’s statute of frauds,1 the trial court dismissed, with prejudice, the three-count amended complaint of the plaintiffs below, appellants Danelia Gomez and Odell Landeros. Count I of the amended complaint alleges that appellee Carlos Gomez, the defendant below, breached an oral joint venture agreement with appellants concerning the acquisition, maintenance and sale of real property. Though the statute of frauds generally does not apply to joint venture agreements to develop and sell real estate for a profit, see Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143, 146 (Fla. 1955), we affirm the dismissal of count I because there was no agreement between the parties that appellee Gomez would share in the net profits of the subject property’s sale. See Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 8 So. 3d 1076, 1093-94 (Fla. 2008) (“While the agreement may meet one or even several elements of the [joint venture] test, it clearly does not meet all of them. . . . [W]hile the parties did agree to share in the net profits, JAA never agreed to share in the losses . . . should the project prove unprofitable.’” (quoting Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 510 F. Supp. 2d 691, 730 (M.D. Fla. 2007))).
Counts II and III of the amended complaint seek equitable relief and the imposition of a constructive trust on allegations sounding in unjust
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Futch v. Head, 511 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…with the trial court’s determination that it was not, and affirm. The agreement between Head and Futch was outside the statute because its subject was not the transfer of land from one of the contracting parties to the other. See Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1955); Blynn v. Hirsch, 124 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Futch would distinguish the Russell decision by contending that Russell, unlike the instant case, concerned joint venturers. Futch submits that Head never proved at trial that the two w…
-
Fla. Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…contract. See Keck v. Schumacher, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 39; Greiner v. General Electric Credit Corp., Fla.App., 215 So. 2d 61; Ellison v. Riddle, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 840; Kislak v. Kreedian, Fla., 95 So. 2d 510; Russell v. Thielen, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 143; Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 495; and Hyman v. Regenstein, 5 Cir., 222 F. 2d 545. The Florida courts have held that to create a joint venture relationship, there must be concurrence of the following elements: (1)…1 / 3
-
Rafael D. Arango, M.D., & Taranco & Assocs. Anesthesiology Grp., P.A. v. Reyka, 507 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…this arrangement, there was evidence of shared control, which was split or divided by mutual agreement between the defendants. Each had control over some aspect of providing anesthesiology services; neither had exclusive control. Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1955); Kilgore Seed Co. v. Lewin, 141 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). [*1214] This is not an uncommon business arrangement. The hospital and anesthesiology group had a joint interest in the financial benefits and profits generated by the combin…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 8 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 2008)
- Kolski v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1955)