Somoza v. Solis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Somoza v. Solis

511 So. 2d 618, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 511 So. 2d 618 (Somoza v. Solis) 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

Somoza v. Solis, 511 So. 2d 618, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Assuming, arguendo, that the several writings signed by the acknowledged agent of the defendants-appellants (the parties to be charged) sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds requirement that an agreement, as here, “that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof” be evidenced by some written note or memorandum, § 725.01, Fla.Stat. (1979), nonetheless, we find no competent evidence in this record to prove, as was the plaintiff-appellee’s burden, that the defendants realized, or intentionally avoided realizing, any profits from the enterprise in which the plaintiff was employed so as to entitle the plaintiff to a money judgment in his favor for a percentage of such profits, as called for by the agreement. It is, moreover, clear that the sole theory upon which this case was tried was plaintiff’s claim that the defendants had breached the agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the alleged profits, that the sole basis for the judgment entered for the plaintiff (as expressly stated in the trial court’s order of clarification) was this alleged breach, that no other theory of recovery was asserted or tried by consent, and that, therefore, there is no other justification for the judgment entered. Accordingly, the judgment under review is

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Assuming, arguendo, that the several writings signed by the acknowledged agent of the defendants-appellants (the parties to be charged) sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds requirement that an agreement, as here, “that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof” be evidenced by some written note or memorandum, § 725.01, Fla.Stat. (1979), nonetheless, we find no competent evidence in this record to prove, as was the plaintiff-appellee’s burden, that the defendants realized, or intentionally avoided realizing, any profits from the enterprise in which the plaintiff was employed so as to entitle the plaintiff to a money judgment in his favor for a percentage of such profits, as called for by the agreement. It is, moreover, clear that the sole theory upon which this case was tried was plaintiff’s claim that the defendants had breached the agreement by failing to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the alleged profits, that the sole basis for the judgment entered for the plaintiff (as expressly stated in the trial court’s order of clarification) was this alleged breach, that no other theory of recovery was asserted or tried by consent, and that, therefore, there is no other justification for the judgment entered. Accordingly, the judgment under review is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 So. 2d 618, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somoza-v-solis-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack