Puskas v. Szabo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Puskas v. Szabo

513 So. 2d 1385, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12335

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2908

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 1385 (Puskas v. Szabo) 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

Puskas v. Szabo, 513 So. 2d 1385, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12335 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paragraph 2 of the joint venture agreement between the parties provides that Szabo’s contribution to the working capital of the joint venture was to be repaid by Puskas only out of Puskas’ “share of the net profits of the Joint Venture as same may be available from time to time.” It is clear, as the trial court found, that there were no net profits, and Puskas was no more responsible for this fiscal failure than Szabo. Therefore, we must agree with Puskas that Paragraph 3B of the final judgment under review, which awards to Szabo “[t]he sum of $17,547.36, representing one-half (½) of the funds advanced by [Szabo] to start the business, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the joint venture agreement,” cannot stand. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to modify the final judgment for Szabo by striking therefrom Paragraph 3B and reducing the total amount of the judgment. As modified, the final judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paragraph 2 of the joint venture agreement between the parties provides that Szabo’s contribution to the working capital of the joint venture was to be repaid by Puskas only out of Puskas’ “share of the net profits of the Joint Venture as same may be available from time to time.” It is clear, as the trial court found, that there were no net profits, and Puskas was no more responsible for this fiscal failure than Szabo. Therefore, we must agree with Puskas that Paragraph 3B of the final judgment under review, which awards to Szabo “[t]he sum of $17,547.36, representing one-half (½) of the funds advanced by [Szabo] to start the business, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the joint venture agreement,” cannot stand. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to modify the final judgment for Szabo by striking therefrom Paragraph 3B and reducing the total amount of the judgment. As modified, the final judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1385, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puskas-v-szabo-fladistctapp-1987.