GEORGE J. BAYA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES H. PRICE ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a petition to impress a retaining lien on stock. The court found that the attorney had not looked to the primary obligor for payment, thus implicating the Statute of Frauds.
Yes, the attorney's claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds because the evidence supported the finding that he did not primarily look to the appellee for payment of his professional services.
“We find substantial, competent evidence in the record upon which the trial court could find that Baya did not look to Price as the primary obligor, and that he considered Carr and Myer primarily responsible for his professional services and Price secondarily liable.”
Establishes the factual basis for applying the Statute of Frauds.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, an attorney, sought to impress a retaining lien on a stock certificate for professional services rendered to appellees. The trial court dis…
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 Retaining Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
George J. Baya appeals from a final judgment which dismissed his petition to impress a retaining lien on a stock certificate for ten thousand shares of the stock of Airlift International, Inc. The basis of his claim for the alleged retaining lien on the stock certificate was professional services rendered by him to James H. Price and James H. Price & Co., Inc. A judgment adverse to Baya was rendered after a hearing in the trial court.
We find substantial, competent evidence in the record upon which the trial court could find that Baya did not look to Price as the primary obligor, and that he considered Carr and Myer primarily responsible for his professional services and Price secondarily liable.
This cause is governed by the Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A. which provides as follows:
“No action shall be brought * * * whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person * * * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith * * * "
See also Troup Bros., Inc. v. State, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 755.
The judgment herein appealed be and the same is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Voyle C. Johnson v. Kruglak, 246 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 374; Price v. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 765; Hewitt v. Price, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 247; Price v. Rome, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 252; Baya v. Price, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 253. The litigation was begun by a complaint for declaratory relief in which the plaintiff, Airlift International, Inc., sought the aid of the circuit court in order to determine the rightful owners of over 1,700,000 shares of its stock. James H. Price…
-
Johnson v. Barnett Bank OF Cocoa, N.A., 320 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…defenses and the crossclaim based on a finding the Statute of Frauds barred the claim. The statute bars enforcement of an oral agreement to pay the debts of a third party, Troup Bros., Inc. v. State, 135 So. 2d 755 (Fla.App.2nd 1961); Baya v. Price, 222 So. 2d 253 (Fla.App.3d 1969), unless the promisor is a primary obligor, Troup Bros., Inc. v. State, supra. Defendant claimed that he gave independent consideration to obtain the plaintiff’s promise to pay the mortgage debts of NFC to plaintiff (whether or not…
-
E.A. LAW & Co. v. Provende, Inc., 471 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ity Mutual Casualty Co. v. Pacura, 402 So. 2d 1266, 1267-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Baya v. Price, 222 So. 2d 253, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). . Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 398 So. 2d 485, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see Fierer v. 18th Avenue Development Corp., 417 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Troup Bros., Inc. v. State of Fla. for the Use & Benefit of Meadows S. Constr. Co., Inc., 135 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)