THE AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. OF OAKLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
SAM FOGELMAN, 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.
American Building Maintenance Co. appeals a chancellor's modification of a non-compete injunction from three years to one year. The court affirms, holding that a chancellor has discretion not only to determine if a non-compete agreement is reasonable, but also to adjust its application based on whether enforcing it as written would be harsh, oppressive, or unjust to the defendant.
The court held that a chancellor has two distinct discretionary determinations: first, whether the non-compete agreement is reasonable per se; and second, whether enforcing that reasonable agreement as written would result in harsh, oppressive, or unjust results when applied to the specific defendant. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in reducing the non-compete period to one year based on consideration of all surrounding circumstances.
“The permissory language of the statute, whereby agreements of the character in suit cmay', in the ediscretion' of the court, 'be enforced by injunction', does not imply that the court is vested with an absolute or arbitrary discretion, and is construed as requiring that the discretion shall be reasonably exercised to the end that the object of the statute may not be nullified.”
Establishes that judicial discretion in non-compete cases must be reasonably exercised and is not absolute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Building Maintenance employed Fogelman as a district manager for nine years. Five months before his discharge, Fogelman was required to sign …
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 Enforceability Of Non-Compete Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff appeals from the chancellor’s order which enjoins the defendant, a former employee, from engaging in a business competitive with the plaintiff for a period of one year.
Plaintiff had employed defendant for nine years as the district manager of its building maintenance business in Dade County. Five months prior to his dis charge, defendant was required to sign a contract whereby he agreed not to engage in a business competitive to his employer’s *792for a three year period, upon termination of his employment.
Subsequent to the defendant’s discharge, he engaged in a competitive business, as a means of livelihood, and the plaintiff instituted this litigation seeking an injunction to enforce the non-competitive portion of the contract. The chancellor, after hearing the evidence, entered a decree which prohibited the defendant from engaging in the building maintenance business for a period of three years. Thereafter, the chancellor granted the defendant’s petition for rehearing and modified the decree to provide for a one year period of non-competition instead of three. It is from this modification that the plaintiff appeals.
Appellant urges that the chancellor abused his discretion in modifying the decree so that it did not conform to the contract provision. We can not agree.
The applicable law was clearly enunciated by Chief Judge Sturgis in Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 816, where he stated:
“F.S. § 542.12, F.S.A. clearly supersedes the common-law rule enunciated in Love v. Miami Laundry Co., supra [118 Fla. 137, 160 So. (32) 35] The permissory language of the statute, whereby agreements of the character in suit cmay’, in the ediscretion’ of the court, ‘be enforced by injunction’, does not imply that the court is vested with an absolute or arbitrary discretion, and is construed as requiring that the discretion shall be reasonably exercised to the end that the object of the statute may not be nullified. The relief cannot be withheld when the proofs, as in the case on appeal, reveal no other alternative. [Citations omitted.] The provisions of the instant contract relating to time and area are found to be reasonable, and well within the directive of the statute, and it is not otherwise harsh, oppressive or unjust.” [Emphasis supplied.] 98 So.2d at 818.
We have emphasized the word “otherwise” in the above cited passage because we feel that it is determinative of the present appeal. It is appellant’s contention that the chancellor has discretion only in determining whether the non-competitive agreement is reasonable and unoppressive in regard to geographical area and duration. Appellant argues that once the chancellor has made this discretionary ruling, that the agreement is reasonable, then he has no-discretion in enforcing its terms. It would be an abuse of discretion to fail to enforce-the contract according to the specific terms thereof.
Appellant’s argument is correct as far as it goes, but it ends too soon. According-to the rule as enunciated in Atlas Travel Service, supra, there are two discretionary steps to be performed by the chancellor, not one, as appellant contends.
The first step is, as outlined above,, for the chancellor to determine whether-the agreement is reasonable. Should this inquiry result in the affirmative, the chancellor will proceed to the second discretionary consideration, to-wit, whether this-reasonable agreement will result in harsh, oppressive or unjust results when applied' to this defendant. In other words, there-are two determinations; (1) the reasonableness of the agreement per se; (2) the reasonableness of the agreement as applied in the instant case, taking into consideration all' of the facts, including those which have-occurred subsequent to the execution of the agreement.
In our case, the chancellor found that the agreement was reasonable, and then made the discretionary determination, as applied in the instant case in view of all of’ the surrounding circumstances, that it was. unreasonable to enjoin this man from his. livelihood for more than one year.
It goes without saying that discretionary determinations will not be inter— *793-fered with on appeal unless substantial error is demonstrated.1 Such error not having been demonstrated we will not disturb ¡the chancello!’s rule.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…57). The only authority the court possesses over the terms of a non-competitive agreement is to determine, as the statute provides, the reasonableness of its time and area limitations. E. g., American Building Maintenance Co. of Oakland v. Fogelman, 167 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). As the supreme court made clear in the Capelouto case, supra, 183 So. 2d at 534: Absent any overriding public interest in having the restricted employee’s services available to it, and we find none present here, the guidelines t…
-
Akey v. Murphy, 238 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1970)…public interest, and without inflicting an unduly harsh or oppressive result on the employee.” And in McQuown v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 370, and American Building Maintenance Co. of Oakland v. Fogelman, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 791, two of our district courts of appeal declined to overturn a chancellor’s exercise of his discretion in reducing to one year contractual restrictions of five and three years, respectively. But see Atlas Travel Service, Inc. v. Morelly, Fla.App. 1957…
-
AIR Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Milan Floribus, 511 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…lished as a matter of law in a case like this, requires reversal of the judgment below. Under Capraro, upon findings, such as those reached below, that the time and space restrictions are appropriate, see American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Fogelman, 167 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), and that the employer has not itself breached the agreement, see Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the trial court has no power to do anything but enforce the terms of the covenant as written by injunct…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1934)
- Atlas Travel Serv., Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- McQUOWN v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., 136 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)