Orovitz v. Borack

904 So. 2d 519, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7951, 2005 WL 1226150
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 25, 2005·No. No. 3D04-1574·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

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.

Footnotes

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

Orovitz v. Borack, 904 So. 2d 519, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7951, 2005 WL 1226150 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

904 So. 2d 519 (Orovitz v. Borack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borack v. Orovitz
963 So. 2d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)