ROSEMARY LAZAR ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN B. ORR, JR., 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.
The court held that the lower court's finding that the parties agreed to exclusive fee rights was supported by sufficient evidence and thus affirmed the denial of an accounting.
Plaintiff's estate sought an accounting from his former law partner regarding fees for services performed during their partnership for a savings and l…
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 Partnership Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
This action, filed originally by Lawrence Lazar, is pursued by the executors of his estate who were substituted as plaintiffs upon his death. Lazar sought an accounting from his former law partner with respect to certain services performed during their partnership on behalf of a savings and loan association.
After hearing conflicting testimony and receiving evidence, the lower court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to such an accounting and entered its order accordingly.
The findings of fact by the lower court reach us with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed upon appeal if there is sufficient competent evidence to support them. Our examination of the record discloses sufficient competent evidence to support a finding that the parties had agreed that Orr should have the exclusive rights to fees for any matter involving the savings and loan association.
This result is consistent with Frates v. Nichols, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 321, 324 where this court stated:
“Parties to a partnership agreement may contract with regard to the distribution of the assets of a partnership upon dissolution in a manner other than that which ordinarily flows by operation of law.”
The appellant has raised a second point on appeal but an examination of the assignment of errors does not show that this point was supported by a proper assignment of error and we, therefore, do not consider this point on appeal.
Accordingly, the order appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cary Colvin v. State, 311 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1975)…; Picchi v. Picchi, 100 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1958); Johnson v. Roberts, 79 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1955); Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Boraks, 276 So. 2d 246 (Fla.App.3d 1973); Kirk v. Thompson, 221 So. 2d 168 (Fla.App.1st 1969); Lazar v. Orr, 207 So. 2d 23 (Ma.App.3d 1968); Marucci v. Linder, 177 So. 2d 237 (Fla.App.2d 1965); Fla.Digest, App. & Err., § 931(1).…
-
S & S Pharms., Inc. v. Hirschfield, 226 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ise or understanding of both appellants to respond to the broker for the amount and, therefore, no error in the entry of the judgment- is demonstrated. Tucker v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 522; Lazar v. Orr, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 23; Reserve Insurance Company v. Earle W. Day & Company, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 709. It is supportable either under the theory that there was a direct promise by the appellants upon the release by the broker to the seller, and therefore not within th…
Authorities Cited
- Frates v. Nichols, 140 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)