Barakat v. Broward County Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 18 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D99-3316.,4D99-3316. |
| Parties | Russell BARAKAT, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary M. Farmer, Jr. of Gillespie, Goldman, Kronengold & Farmer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James D. Stokes and James C. Crosland of Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Russell Barakat was employed by the Broward County Housing Authority (BCHA). Following a non-jury trial, the court entered a final judgment denying Barakat's complaint for severance pay and dismissing the cause with prejudice.
Barakat was employed pursuant to Broward County Housing Resolution 1992-75 (Resolution) as the executive director of the BCHA for a five-year term beginning November 18, 1992. The resolution sets forth terms of the employment, including a severance pay provision.1
On May 6, 1996, Barakat was convicted of filing a false tax return. On May 21, 1996, the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) advised the BCHA that Barakat was suspended from participating directly or indirectly in HUD programs because of his conviction for filing a false tax return. As a result of this suspension, Barakat's employment was terminated by BCHA on May 31, 1996, without severance pay.
Pursuant to Barakat's motion in limine to exclude parol evidence, the trial court found that the Resolution was a contract and the operative paragraphs dealing with severance pay were clear and unambiguous. Despite that fact, in the final judgment, the court concluded that Barakat was not entitled to severance pay.
After taking testimony, the trial court found no evidence that Barakat acted other than in an exemplary manner during the period of his employment. However, the trial court held that as a result of the suspension by HUD, Barakat could not perform his duties as executive director of the BCHA and that Barakat's suspension justified a termination for cause. Further, the trial court found that the severance pay provision was not an absolute entitlement. Rather, the severance pay provision had limitations because "reasonableness is implied in every contract" and a court can only give effect to a contract if it is reasonable, not unconscionable, and does not contravene public policy. Additionally, the trial court reasoned that "a party cannot recover on a contract when he himself has rendered it incapable of performance by his own inability to perform the promise given."
The trial court's conclusion that to require the BCHA to provide severance pay to Barakat when he was being terminated for cause would be unconscionable and contrary to public policy is erroneous. Unconscionability is an affirmative defense which must be raised by proper pleading. See Neiman v. Galloway, 704 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Unconscionability was never pled as an affirmative defense by BCHA and the facts before the trial court did not show that this contract was against public policy.
Although contracts are to be construed in order to give effect to the intent of the parties, it is a well settled principle of contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acheron Portfolio Tr. v. Mukamal
... ... (DE 77 at 3-4). Defendant cites authority for the rule that, ... under Florida law, a trust ... v ... Broward Vending, Inc. , 404 So.2d 782, 783-84 (Fla. 4th ... Barakat v. Broward Cty. Hous. Auth. , 771 So.2d 1193, ... Weiland v. Palm Beach County ... ...
-
Siever v. Bwgaskets, Inc.
...out to be a bad bargain", because a court cannot give a contract any meaning beyond that expressed. Barakat v. Broward County Hous. Auth., 771 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); City of Winter Haven v. Ridge Air, Inc., 458 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA While both parties maintain that the ......
-
GE Med. Sys. S.C.S. v. SYMX Healthcare Corp.
...the role of a trial court to rewrite a contract to make it more reasonable for one of the parties," Barakat v. Broward [Cnty.] Hous. Auth., 771 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), or, in the guise of interpretation, relieve a contracting party from the consequences of a bad bargain, Pres......
-
Sultan Chemists, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...more reasonable for one of the parties or to relieve a party from what turns out to be a bad bargain." Barakat v. Broward County Hous. Auth., 771 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000) (citation Finally, Sultan argues that the EPA's "hypertechnical" interpretation of both the Agreement and......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Unconscionability is an affirmative defense which must be raised by proper pleading. Barakat v. Broward County Housing Authority , 771 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). 9. Application of Analysis: The contract should have been reviewed in the light of the circumstances that existed when......
-
Contract cases
...Unconscionability is an affirmative defense which must be raised by proper pleading. Barakat v. Broward County Housing Authority , 771 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Cole , 287 So.3d 1272, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). §3:10.5 Related Matters 1. Anticipator......
-
Post-Tiara: Contracts Are Still King.
...Cohen v. Pullman Co., 243 F.2d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 1957); LynkUs, 965 So. 2d 1161). (76) Barakat v. Broward Cty. Housing Authority, 771 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("It is never the role of a trial court to rewrite a contract to make it more reasonable for one of the parties or to ......