BEDROS AZAROGLU, APPELLANT,
v.
GLADYS B. JORDAN 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.
Bedros Azaroglu appealed a judgment dismissing his claim for approximately $29,000 in back wages against his deceased employer's estate. The court held that the one-year statute of limitations for wage claims under Florida law barred the action, and filing a timely claim against the estate did not toll this separate statute of limitations.
The court held that the services were personal in nature and the compensation must be considered wages rather than salary, making the one-year statute of limitations applicable. The court further held that filing a timely claim against the decedent's estate does not toll the statute of limitations for wage claims; when two statutes of limitation apply, the plaintiff is barred by whichever runs first.
[1] An action to recover wages is barred by the one-year statute of limitations when the services performed are personal in nature.
[2] A claim filed against a decedent's estate does not toll the application of a separate statute of limitations that bars an action for wages.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 services performed by plaintiff were personal in nature, the money sought must be considered wages rather than salary and this action falls within the statute of limitations”
Establishes that personal services compensation is classified as wages, triggering the one-year statute of limitations under F.S. § 95.11(7)(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBedros Azaroglu had an oral agreement with Harry M. Burt to perform personal services at $100 per week. Burt died on November 8, 1969. Azaroglu timely…
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 Claim Against Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant, Bedros Azaroglu, seeks review of an adverse final judgment in a proceeding to recover approximately $29,000 in back wages from his deceased employer’s estate.
The decedent, Harry M. Burt, was instrumental in assisting plaintiff to come to the United States and once in the United States Burt helped find him employment. In addition an oral agreement was made between plaintiff and decedent which provided that plaintiff would receive one hundred dollars per week for the performance of various personal services for Burt. Burt died on November 8, 1969 and plaintiff, following publication of the notice to' creditors in August 1970, timely filed a claim against the estate in October 1970 for back wages allegedly unpaid since 1963 in the amount of $28,976.85. Plaintiff’s claim was not paid by the executors and the cause came on for trial on January 8, 1971, at which time the court found that plaintiff’s action was barred by F.S. § 95.11 (7) (b), F.S.A., which set a one year time limit for actions to recover wages. Thereafter this appeal ensued.
Plaintiff urges this court to find that the compensation sought was a salary as distinguished from a wage thereby making the statute of limitations inapplicable. Broward Builders Exchange, Inc. v. Goebring, Fla.1970, 231 So.2d 513. After careful review of the record on appeal we hold that the services performed by plaintiff were personal in nature, the money sought must be considered wages rather than salary and this action falls within the statute of limitations. Buenger v. Kennedy, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 463.
The only remaining issue on appeal is whether F.S. § 95.11(7) (b), F.S.A., completely bars plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff maintains that his action is saved by the *423fact that a timely claim was filed against decedent’s estate in accordance with F.S. § 733.16(1), F.S.A., and the statute of limitations under F.S. § 95.11(7) (b), F.S.A., is tolled. Controlling in this situation is the case of Lucom v. Atlantic National Bank of West Palm Beach, 354 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1965) which holds that in Florida when two statutes of limitation are applicable to a particular situation, both statutes limit the time in which an action may be brought and the dilatory litigant is caught by whichever runs first. As a result of this, plaintiff’s claim against decedent’s estate does not toll the application of F.S. § 95.11 (7) (b), F.S.A., and the trial court correctly interpreted the interaction of these two statutes.
Accordingly the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McRAE v. Douglas, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…o “[a]n action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime.” This statute and its predecessor were intended to cover claims for wages or overtime earned for services rendered, see Azaroglu v. Jordan, 270 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973), or claims for improper withholding of wages such as during periods of suspension. See Gow v. County of Dade, 371 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.), cert. d…
-
Hullinger v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 548 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1989)…“[a]n action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime.” This statute and its predecessor were intended to cover claims for wages or overtime, earned for services rendered, see Azaroglu v. Jordan, 270 So. 2d 422 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973), or claims for improper withholding of wages such as during periods of suspension. See Gow v. County of Dade, 371 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.), cert. de…
-
Briggs v. The Est. OF Pauline Geelhoed, 543 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ct. In Jones v. Lummus, 359 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the court held that the timely filing of a claim against an estate tolled the running of a statute of limitations. The Jones court receded from the viewpoint expressed in Azaroglu v. Jordan, 270 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1973), that neither death nor the filing of a claim was effective to toll a statute of limitations. Because of the facts in Jones it was not necessary for the court to make a distinction between t…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Lily Goehring, 231 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1970)
- Dinnen v. Lincoln Fin. Co., Inc., 151 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Lucom v. Atl. Nat'l Bank of W. Palm Beach, 354 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1965)