Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 97-586
| Decision Date | 11 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-586,97-586 |
| Citation | 706 So.2d 68 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D455 Sergio CABANAS, Appellant, v. WOMACK & BASS, P.A., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen Cahen, Miami; Lawrence & Daniels and Adam H. Lawrence, Miami, for appellant.
Womack, Appleby & Brennan and Eric Colburn Sage, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Sergio Cabanas appeals a final summary judgment in his breach of employment agreement action against Womack & Bass, P.A. We reverse.
Cabanas was employed by Womack & Bass, P.A., on May 29, 1992. The firm orally promised Cabanas that after completing six months of probation he would receive a $5000 raise and a leased car at the firm's expense. Additionally, Cabanas was promised, as a bonus, ten percent of billings over $50,000 generated by Cabanas in the year, at the time the monies were collected.
On November 29, 1992, after six months had elapsed, the firm told Cabanas he would have to work for a full year before he would receive the salary increase or the car. In June 1993, the raise and the car were not provided. In September 1993, Cabanas left the firm with the understanding that bonus payments based on collected billings would continue. However, on March 4, 1994, the firm notified Cabanas by letter that it would remit no further bonus payments to him.
Cabanas filed a lawsuit in February 1995 to recover damages for breach of the agreement. Womack & Bass filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), and the statute of frauds. The trial court granted the motion.
In Nealon v. Right Human Resource Consultants, Inc., 669 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), this court clearly held that an action by an executive, a salaried employee, for an unpaid bonus was not a suit for wages for purposes of section 95.11(4)(c). Rather, the correct statute of limitations governing these actions is the four-year provision of section 95.11(3)(k). Following the holding in Nealon, Cabanas' action was timely brought under section 95.11(3)(k) and is not barred.
Neither is this claim barred by the statute of frauds. Contracts for employment which are terminable at will by either party for an indefinite period of duration do not fall under the statute of frauds. See Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Gulf...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browning v. Poirier
...commissions earned for past services and there was no evidence contract was intended to last beyond one year); Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 706 So.2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding that statute of frauds did not bar claim for breach of oral employment contract for indefinite time, that w......
-
Knight v. Palm City Millwork and Supply Co.
...ground for the discharge has been condemned by the legislature." Crawford, 490 So.2d at 996 & n. 4. See also Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 706 So.2d 68 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (referring to at-will employment relationship as "contract for employment"); Recio v. Kent Security Servs., Inc., ......
-
LaRue v. Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc.
...duration and therefore capable of performance within one year, was not within the statute of frauds. Likewise, in Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, 706 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), this Court found that the statute of frauds did not bar Cabanas' breach of contract claim where the oral employmen......
-
Richey v. Modular Designs, Inc.
...of limitations in section 95.11(3)(k), Florida Statutes (2000) is applicable to his claim for commissions. Cabanas v. Womack & Bass, P.A., 706 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Barnes Surgical Specialties, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 549 So.2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The record contains no evid......