THOMAS R. TAYLOR, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS CALVIN TAYLOR, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY R. THOMPSON, 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 court erred in denying compensation for services rendered by appellee to the decedent, but correctly allowed restitution for sums expended on the decedent's behalf.
Appellee sought restitution for sums expended for the decedent and compensation for services rendered. The trial court awarded restitution but denied …
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 Implied Contract For Services cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment allowing appellee to recover $2,505.60 from the Taylor estate as restitution for sums she allegedly expended on behalf of the decedent during his lifetime. Appellee cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of her count seeking compensation for services she allegedly performed for the decedent. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Appellant’s argument, contesting the sufficiency of the proof on the restitution count and the admissibility of certain checks introduced by appellee, is without support in the record or the cases cited. There is merit, however, in appellee’s contention that the court erred in failing to award her compensation for her numerous personal services to the decedent. There was substantial un-contradicted testimony that appellee served as chauffeur, cook, laundryperson, housekeeper, companion, and nurse to the decedent over a four-year period without compensation before his death. As the court stated in Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971):
“. . . where services are rendered by one person for another which are knowingly and voluntarily accepted, the law presumes that such services are given and received in expectation of being paid for, and will imply a promise to pay what they are reasonably worth.”
The denial of appellee’s Count II is reversed and the case remanded for a determination of the reasonable value of appellee’s services. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. P.L. Dodge Founds., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ry acceptance of the benefits of any service creates an implied promise on the part of the recipient to pay for them. Yeats v. Moody, 128 Fla. 658, 175 So. 719 (1937); Strano v. Carr & Carr, Inc., 97 Fla. 150, 119 So. 864 (1929); Taylor v. Thompson, 359 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). A prisoner-recipient is not excepted from this rule. Lutheran Medical Center v. Oma…
-
Nursing Care Servs., Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…son for whose benefit they were rendered requested the services or knowingly and voluntarily accepted their benefits. Yeats v. Moody, 128 Fla. 658, 175 So. 719 (1937); Strano v. Carr & Carr, Inc., 97 Fla. 150, 119 So. 864 (1929); Taylor v. Thompson, 359 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Tobin & Tobin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The law’s concern that needless services not be foisted upon the unsuspecting has led to the formulation of the “officious in-termeddler do…
Authorities Cited
- Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)