Dobbs v. Gorlitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dobbs v. Gorlitz

443 So. 2d 1068, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1148

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 1068 (Dobbs v. Gorlitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dobbs v. Gorlitz, 443 So. 2d 1068, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where uneontroverted affidavits and deposition testimony submitted in support of a summary judgment motion showed that the defendant, a business owner, had in 1981 renewed an earlier oral promise to plaintiff, his employee, to give plaintiff ownership in the business upon defendant’s retirement in exchange for the plaintiff remaining in his employ, and that within the year defendant retired from the business and sold all his stock in the business to a third party, defendant had not demonstrated conclusively that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract was barred by the statute of frauds. Summary judgment was, therefore, inappropriate. There was nothing in the terms of the oral agreement to show that it could not be performed within a year. Further, the fact that the defendant did sell his business interest within a year of the agreement is a strong factor weighing against construction of the agreement as one within the statute of frauds. See Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937); Central National Bank of Miami v. Central Bancorp, Inc., 411 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Where uneontroverted affidavits and deposition testimony submitted in support of a summary judgment motion showed that the defendant, a business owner, had in 1981 renewed an earlier oral promise to plaintiff, his employee, to give plaintiff ownership in the business upon defendant’s retirement in exchange for the plaintiff remaining in his employ, and that within the year defendant retired from the business and sold all his stock in the business to a third party, defendant had not demonstrated conclusively that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract was barred by the statute of frauds. Summary judgment was, therefore, inappropriate. There was nothing in the terms of the oral agreement to show that it could not be performed within a year. Further, the fact that the defendant did sell his business interest within a year of the agreement is a strong factor weighing against construction of the agreement as one within the statute of frauds. See Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937); Central National Bank of Miami v. Central Bancorp, Inc., 411 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 1068, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobbs-v-gorlitz-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack