Orovitz v. Borack
This text of 904 So. 2d 519 (Orovitz v. Borack) 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.
Opinion
In this case involving the amounts recoverable by a departing partner under a law firm partnership agreement, the jury verdict for the plaintiff-appellee of $128,-4Ó2.541 clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that it did not give “credit” to appellant Orovitz for a note payable to him, as just as clearly provided by the agreement2 and established without contradiction at trial. Accordingly, as we are authorized by the cases, see Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So.2d 36 (Fla.1971); Brod, v. Adler, 570 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 577 So.2d 1325 (Fla.1991); Balsera v. A.B.D.M. & P. Corp., 511 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So.2d 986 (Fla.1987); Burgess v. Mid-Florida Serv., 609 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986); U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utils., Inc., 454 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we therefore order that the verdict and judgment be reduced by Borack’s thirty-five percent share of the established amount of the partnership debt, $282,000.00. Upon remand, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff-appellee in the reduced amount of $29,702.54. •
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
904 So. 2d 519, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7951, 2005 WL 1226150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orovitz-v-borack-fladistctapp-2005.