Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson

757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-4063

StatusPublished

This text of 757 So. 2d 1290 (Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson) 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

Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson, 757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the November 5, 1999 order denying appellant’s request for injunctive relief. The face of the order indicates that the trial court applied the incorrect law. This case concerns the enforcement of a covenant not to compete entered into in 1997. The trial court found that the covenant was “void as a matter of law pursuant to § 542.33[,]Contracts in restraint of trade valid, Florida Statutes.” Effective July 1, 1996, section 542.33 was repealed. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1999), became effective on July 1, 1996; section 542.335(3) provides that the act applies prospectively, but not “in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before July 1, 1996.” The cases cited in the order suggest that the basis of the court’s ruling was that appellee, Noel Lawson was not an employee or agent, but an independent contractor. See Servpro Indus., Inc. v. Spohn, 638 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Le-nox v. Sound Entertainment, Inc., 470 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). These cases predate section 542.335(1)(d)1. which addresses the reasonableness of a time restraint in a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a “former employee, agent, or independent contractor.”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the November 5, 1999 order denying appellant’s request for injunctive relief. The face of the order indicates that the trial court applied the incorrect law. This case concerns the enforcement of a covenant not to compete entered into in 1997. The trial court found that the covenant was “void as a matter of law pursuant to § 542.33[,]Contracts in restraint of trade valid, Florida Statutes.” Effective July 1, 1996, section 542.33 was repealed. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1999), became effective on July 1, 1996; section 542.335(3) provides that the act applies prospectively, but not “in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before July 1, 1996.” The cases cited in the order suggest that the basis of the court’s ruling was that appellee, Noel Lawson was not an employee or agent, but an independent contractor. See Servpro Indus., Inc. v. Spohn, 638 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Le-nox v. Sound Entertainment, Inc., 470 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). These cases predate section 542.335(1)(d)1. which addresses the reasonableness of a time restraint in a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a “former employee, agent, or independent contractor.”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-county-sweeping-services-inc-v-lawson-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack