James v. DuBreuil

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. DuBreuil

385 So. 2d 708, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17059

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1980

DocketNos. 79-1636, 79-1637

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 708 (James v. DuBreuil) 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

James v. DuBreuil, 385 So. 2d 708, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17059 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review and the order denying Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 relief under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) there was competent substantial evidence in this record to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had no right to an accounting based on the June 29, 1971 agreement between the parties [plaintiff’s exhibit no. 2], as prayed for in the amended complaint, because (a) such agreement was unenforceable as it was unsupported by good and valuable consideration, and (b) the consideration recited in such agreement was invalid as it was based on a transfer of stock which the plaintiff was already obligated to make by virtue of a valid July 7, 1966 option agreement be[709]*709tween the parties; and (2) no fraud sufficient to vacate the final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(3) has been shown on this record. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); F. L. Stitt & Co. v. Powell, 94 Fla. 550, 114 So. 375 (1927); Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cuna Mutual Insurance Society v. Adamides, 334 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Delallo v. Food Palace, Inc., 330 So.2d 835, 836-837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review and the order denying Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 relief under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (1) there was competent substantial evidence in this record to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had no right to an accounting based on the June 29, 1971 agreement between the parties [plaintiff’s exhibit no. 2], as prayed for in the amended complaint, because (a) such agreement was unenforceable as it was unsupported by good and valuable consideration, and (b) the consideration recited in such agreement was invalid as it was based on a transfer of stock which the plaintiff was already obligated to make by virtue of a valid July 7, 1966 option agreement be[709]*709tween the parties; and (2) no fraud sufficient to vacate the final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(3) has been shown on this record. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); F. L. Stitt & Co. v. Powell, 94 Fla. 550, 114 So. 375 (1927); Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cuna Mutual Insurance Society v. Adamides, 334 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Delallo v. Food Palace, Inc., 330 So.2d 835, 836-837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 708, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-dubreuil-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack