Vetro v. City of Coral Springs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vetro v. City of Coral Springs

901 So. 2d 875, 2005 WL 1226064

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-4226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 901 So. 2d 875 (Vetro v. City of Coral Springs) 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

Vetro v. City of Coral Springs, 901 So. 2d 875, 2005 WL 1226064 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

GROSS, J.

This case involves a salaried, at-will employee who sued her employer to recover longevity benefits under a written contract. The employer obtained final summary judgment on two grounds: that the employer had fully performed under the non-ambiguous contract and that the statute of limitations had run on the employee’s claim.

Viewing the ongoing employment contract as analogous to an installment contract, we are inclined to agree with the employee’s position that she was entitled to maintain a claim for underpayments of salary, within the statute of limitations period. See Hannett v. Bryan, 640 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Bishop v. State, Div. of Ret., 413 So.2d 776, 777-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Habib v. Raytheon Co., 616 F.2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1980); Stone v. City of Phila., 1987 WL 8538, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 27, 1987) (observing that “[ejmployment contracts — in which one party’s performance of services and the other party’s payment of compensation are readily apportionable into individual segments — tend to be divisible”); Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 559 S.E.2d 450, 453 (2002); Piedmont Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 103 Ga.App. 225, 119 S.E.2d 63, 71-72 (1961); Collins v. Summers Hardware & Supply Co., 88 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002); Greene v. THGC, Inc., 915 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tenn.App.Ct.1996); 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:20 (4th ed. 2000).

However, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue because we agree with the employer that it fully performed the non-ambiguous provision of the contract by timely paying the “one time” increases in the employee’s base salary after ten and [876]*876fifteen years of the employee’s continuous service.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

GROSS, J.

This case involves a salaried, at-will employee who sued her employer to recover longevity benefits under a written contract. The employer obtained final summary judgment on two grounds: that the employer had fully performed under the non-ambiguous contract and that the statute of limitations had run on the employee’s claim.

Viewing the ongoing employment contract as analogous to an installment contract, we are inclined to agree with the employee’s position that she was entitled to maintain a claim for underpayments of salary, within the statute of limitations period. See Hannett v. Bryan, 640 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Bishop v. State, Div. of Ret., 413 So.2d 776, 777-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Habib v. Raytheon Co., 616 F.2d 1204, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1980); Stone v. City of Phila., 1987 WL 8538, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 27, 1987) (observing that “[ejmployment contracts — in which one party’s performance of services and the other party’s payment of compensation are readily apportionable into individual segments — tend to be divisible”); Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co., 274 Ga. 745, 559 S.E.2d 450, 453 (2002); Piedmont Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 103 Ga.App. 225, 119 S.E.2d 63, 71-72 (1961); Collins v. Summers Hardware & Supply Co., 88 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002); Greene v. THGC, Inc., 915 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tenn.App.Ct.1996); 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:20 (4th ed. 2000).

However, we do not reach the statute of limitations issue because we agree with the employer that it fully performed the non-ambiguous provision of the contract by timely paying the “one time” increases in the employee’s base salary after ten and [876]*876fifteen years of the employee’s continuous service.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 So. 2d 875, 2005 WL 1226064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vetro-v-city-of-coral-springs-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack