JOSE PEREZ AND AUGUSTINA PEREZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
RAUL HERNANDEZ, 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 trial judge's finding of a partnership was supported by competent substantial evidence and would not be disturbed on appeal.
[1] A partnership may be established by evidence showing that the parties intended to form a partnership, that they shared in profits and losses, and that they had joint cont…
[2] The existence of a partnership is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact based on the evidence presented.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued defendants alleging they were partners in a laundry business, but defendants claimed plaintiff was only an employee. The trial court fo…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants appeal a judgment finding them and the plaintiff to be partners in a certain laundry business and granting plaintiff an accounting.
Plaintiff-appellee, Raul Hernandez, filed a complaint against the defendant-appel lants, Jose and Augustina Perez, for an accounting and partition and sale of a business venture known as the Atlantic Laundry located in Hialeah, Florida. Plaintiff alleged that he and defendants owned a i/¿ interest each in the laundry; nevertheless, defendants exercised full control and retained all income, receipts and profits from the business dispite his objections and demand for his share. Defendants answered that plaintiff was an employee only, not a partner. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial, at the conclusion of which the trial judge entered the above judgment for the plaintiff. We affirm.
As so frequently happens, the existence vel non of a partnership became a question of fact to be determined from the conflicting testimony or the testimony from which different inferences may have been drawn and it was within the province of the judge, sitting as the trier of the facts, to decide whether those facts exist that show that a partnership had been formed. See 24 Fla.Jur. Partnership §§ 39-42 (1959).
The testimony reflected that plaintiff and defendants previously founded and operated the Atlantic Market as a partnership, and the equipment for the Atlantic Laundry had been purchased from funds generated from the operation of the market. The Mar-Eli Corporation, which held title to both the market and laundry business, was named for the daughters of each of the parties, Marts. Perez and .Elizabeth Hernandez. There was also testimony of witnesses that it was their impression that plaintiff and defendants are partners in the laundry and held themselves out as such.
The trial judge concluded from the testimony that a partnership had been formed and there being competent substantial evidence contained in the record to support this conclusion, it will not be disturbed on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarduy v. Martinez, 406 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Uhrig v. Redding, 150 Fla. 480, 8 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1942); Perez v. Hernandez, 323 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also Schilpp v. Schilpp, 380 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).…