THOMAS E. FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM E. FINLEY 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.
Flowers appealed a summary judgment dismissing his breach of contract claim against Finley and others for allegedly breaching an oral agreement to give him a 7.5% interest in a management organization. The court affirmed, holding that the oral contract fell within Florida's Statute of Frauds because performance was tied to employment intended to last longer than one year.
The court held that the alleged oral contract is unenforceable because it falls within the Statute of Frauds. Since the 7.5% interest was inextricably tied to employment intended to extend from 1972 to at least 1976, the contract clearly contemplated performance beyond one year and therefore required written evidence.
[1] An oral agreement is within the Statute of Frauds if the parties intended it to extend for a period longer than one year, even if performance within one year is not impos…
[2] An oral contract for a percentage interest in a management organization is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds when the interest is inextricably tied to employment…
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“when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object to be accomplished by it and the surrounding circumstances, it clearly appears that the parties intended it should extend for a longer period than a year, it is within the statute of frauds, though it cannot be said that there is any impossibility preventing its performance within a year.”
Establishes the controlling Florida rule for determining whether an oral contract falls within the Statute of Frauds based on the parties' intent regarding duration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlowers, a management expert in California, was contacted by defendants interested in managing Interama. The parties orally agreed that if Flowers aba…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant, Thomas E. Flowers, seeks review of a summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant-appellees in this action for breach of contract. The controlling question is whether the contract sought to be enforced was an oral agreement within the Statute of Frauds (§ 725.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) in that it was an “. . . agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof.”
Defendants, desirous of becoming the management organization of Interama, contacted Flowers because of his reputation in the field of management and development. The parties discussed the possibility of the plaintiff lending his name and reputation to the defendants, moving from his residence in California to Florida and becoming an employee of the defendants with respect to their expected management contract with Interama. Subsequently, plaintiff and defendants entered into an oral contract which according to plaintiff provided as follows :
(1) If Flowers would abandon his California interest, commit himself to the FINLEY-GREEN JOINT VENTURE, allow the defendants to use his name, reputation, and commitment in their attempt to obtain the Interama contract, and move to Florida for the purposes of contributing his services, Flowers would receive a 7Y¿% interest in said management organization.
(2) If Flowers would remain in Florida, in the capacity of an employee of the defendants, for a period of five years, contribute his services and expertise to the joint venture, he would receive a salary of $50,000 per year. Defendant-appellees thereafter entered into a contract with Interama and became the management organization thereof. Thereupon, Flowers abandoned his California interests, moved to Florida and began working for the defendants. Flowers then made several demands for the 7%% interest, but to no avail. Eight months after he moved to Florida, defendants discharged Flowers. Plaintiff-appellant Flowers filed a complaint against the defendants and sought to enforce both provisions, 1 and 2, of the alleged oral contract cited herein-above. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint wherein he sought only to enforce the 7J4% interest in the management organization which had obtained the Interama contract. In response thereto, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on which the trial court reserved ruling. Subsequently, defendants filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment. After hearing oral argument on the motion the trial court entered summary final judgment in favor of the defendants on the primary ground that the contract fell within the Statute of Frauds and was not in writing and, therefore, not enforceable. Plaintiff appeals therefrom. We affirm.
The established rule in Florida is that “when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object to be accomplished by it and the surrounding circumstances, it clearly appears that the parties intended it should extend for a longer period than a year, it is within the statute of frauds, though it cannot be said that there is any impossibility preventing its performance within a year.” Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937).
Reviewing the record on appeal in a light most favorable to plaintiff and in light of the above rule of law, it is apparent from plaintiff-appellant’s own deposition testimony that the 7Yi% interest was inextricably tied to his employment with the defendants, the duration of which plaintiff testified was from 1972 until at least 1976. Thus, we conclude that the alleged oral contract falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. Cf. Manas v. Southern Diversified Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1967, 193 So. 2d 480; Rowland v. Ewell, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 78.
We also have examined appellant’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit. See Canell et al. v. Areola Housing Corp. et al., Fla. 1953, 65 So. 2d 849.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hesston Corp. v. Roche, 599 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ss or the need for the particular position is eliminated. . Unless, of course, the parties expect that the promisee will be dead in less than a year. . Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., 190 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1966); Flowers v. Finley, 311 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA1975); Ostman v. Lawn, 305 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA1974). .Even an oral contract for employment for an indefinite period of time is within the statute of frauds. Johnson v. Edwards, 569 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA1990).…
-
Sandstrom v. State, 336 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1976)…County, was affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in an opinion reported at 309 So. 2d 17. His later Dade County conviction was affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeal, on the authority of the earlier case, in a decision reported at 311 So. 2d 804. We tentatively granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict between these decisions and earlier Florida precedents.1 As will be developed more fully below, I believe that the conflict of decisions is direct, and that we have jurisdiction to r…
-
Rice v. Cities Sewer Serv. OF Broward Cnty., Inc., 488 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…as a joint and indivisible undertaking of Cities Sewer and Pugh, and the employment and first refusal rights were indivisible from each other. Appellees cite authorities which they maintain support the latter contention. However, Flowers v. Finley, 311 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) is distinguished by its facts, because it concerned an alleged promise of an interest in a joint venture as a part of an oral employment agreement for a multi-year term; and suit on the provision for an interest in the joint ventu…
Authorities Cited
- Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1937)
- Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953)
- Rowland v. Ewell, 174 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Manas v. S. Diversified Indus., Inc., 193 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)