Potter v. J R Office Furniture & Equipment Co.

590 So. 2d 1089, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12706, 1991 WL 272778
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 23, 1991
DocketNo. 90-3612
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 1089 (Potter v. J R Office Furniture & Equipment Co.) 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
Potter v. J R Office Furniture & Equipment Co., 590 So. 2d 1089, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12706, 1991 WL 272778 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff employee from a final judgment for the defendant employer in a suit for monies allegedly due under an oral employment agreement. In the judgment, the trial court found that “no monies of any nature were due Potter from Contrax at the time of the filing of the suit,” at which time Potter “had drawn $41,064 more than he had actually earned,” and that “it is still dubious, much less unproven (sic), that even today Potter has vested sufficient commissions to equal the monies that have been advanced by Con-trax against future commissions.”

Although the parties presented conflicting versions of the agreement, the trial court’s findings regarding the amount of compensation actually paid Potter in draws against prospective commissions, the methodology for calculating the commissions, the point at which the commissions vested, and whether Potter was entitled to overage commissions on specific projects, were supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.

Notwithstanding that the trial court apparently based its decision on the theory of abatement, citing cases factually distinguishable from the case at issue, we find that the defense of payment was properly pled and proved, and that the requisite findings were made in the final judgment to support that defense. We note that the final judgment provides that it “shall not preclude RICHARD J. POTTER from bringing a future action against J R OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT CO., INC., should his vested commissions exceed the draws advanced against those commissions.”

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In Re Anson
457 B.R. 130 (M.D. Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
590 So. 2d 1089, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12706, 1991 WL 272778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-j-r-office-furniture-equipment-co-fladistctapp-1991.