Smith v. Locklear

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Locklear

906 So. 2d 1273, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11813, 2005 WL 1787452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-3669

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 906 So. 2d 1273 (Smith v. Locklear) 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

Smith v. Locklear, 906 So. 2d 1273, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11813, 2005 WL 1787452 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination that the purported agreement between Lois Locklear Smith and her brother, James Early Locklear, Sr., is unenforceable. The agreement lacks consideration. Providing past services rendered without the expectation of compensation is not adequate consideration to support a contract. See Fla. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Brown, 47 So.2d 748, 760 (Fla.1949). Alternatively, an agreement to make a gift is not enforceable against the donor. Brown v. Brown, 501 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Consequently, “[t]he promisor may change his mind at will and is likewise free to correct any mistake he might make in effectuating his intention to make a gift and is also free to not do so.” Id. Finally, the agreement lacks sufficient specificity for enforcement. In order to create a contract, it is essential that there exist a reciprocal agreement to certain and definite terms. So long as any essential matters are left open for further consideration, the contract is not complete. Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 253, 54 So. 92 (1910).

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination that the purported agreement between Lois Locklear Smith and her brother, James Early Locklear, Sr., is unenforceable. The agreement lacks consideration. Providing past services rendered without the expectation of compensation is not adequate consideration to support a contract. See Fla. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Brown, 47 So.2d 748, 760 (Fla.1949). Alternatively, an agreement to make a gift is not enforceable against the donor. Brown v. Brown, 501 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Consequently, “[t]he promisor may change his mind at will and is likewise free to correct any mistake he might make in effectuating his intention to make a gift and is also free to not do so.” Id. Finally, the agreement lacks sufficient specificity for enforcement. In order to create a contract, it is essential that there exist a reciprocal agreement to certain and definite terms. So long as any essential matters are left open for further consideration, the contract is not complete. Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 253, 54 So. 92 (1910).

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 1273, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11813, 2005 WL 1787452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-locklear-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack