Doyal v. School Bd. of Liberty County
| Decision Date | 08 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AD-246,AD-246 |
| Parties | 5 Ed. Law Rep. 308 Theresa B. DOYAL, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF LIBERTY COUNTY, a/k/a The Board of Public Instruction of Liberty County, Florida, a public corporation, and Laquita Shuler, as Superintendent of the School District of Liberty County and individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Busch of Busch & White, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Clinton E. Foster and Richard D. Ogburn, Panama City, for appellees.
The order here appealed is a final summary judgment entered for appellant on Counts I and II and for appellees on Counts III and IV of appellant's amended complaint. Appellant raises as error the summary judgment for appellees on Count III and the denial of her prayer for attorney's fees.
Count III of the amended complaint alleged that the superintendent of schools tortiously interfered with appellant's contractual relationship with the Liberty County School Board. The tort of malicious interference with a contractual relationship has been consistently defined by the Florida courts as an intentional interference with a contract between two persons where one of the parties is induced to breach the contract to the injury of the other. Dade Enterprises v. Wometco Theaters, 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (Fla.1935); West v. Troelstrup, 367 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Franklin v. Brown, 159 So.2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Steffan v. Zernes, 124 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). In the present case, the superintendent did not induce either appellant or the school board to breach the employment contract. The superintendent simply refused to sign appellant's salary warrants causing the breach.
The present case is factually similar to the situation in West v. Troelstrup, supra. Troelstrup was the executive director of the Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement (FDCLE). Appellant in that case was employed by FDCLE until Troelstrup allegedly unlawfully discharged him from his employment. We held in that case that Troelstrup must be considered to be a party to the employment relationship stating:
The nature of the tort supports the determination that Troelstrup was not a third party to the employment relationship. A third party interferes with a contract or business relationship by influencing, inducing or coercing one of the parties to the relationship to abandon the relationship or breach the contract, thereby causing injury to the other party. If Troelstrup was a third party, who did he induce to terminate West? There is no allegation that Troelstrup influenced or induced anyone to terminate West. It appears that the only person who could have been induced to terminate West was Troelstrup himself. 367 So.2d at 255.
In the present case, the superintendent did not induce the school board to breach the employment contract with appellant, it was the superintendent's own conduct, in refusing to sign appellant's salary warrants, which constituted the breach of the contract. And, although the superintendent may not have technically been a party to the employment contract, we agree with the trial court in its determination that the superintendent could not be considered a third party to the employment relationship for the purposes of the tort of malicious interference with a contractual relationship. Cf. Hollis v. School Board of Leon County, 384 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on this point.
Appellant also raises as error the trial court's failure to grant appellant an attorney's fee on the final summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Brightstar Int'l Corp.
... ... for attorney's fees. [ 6 ] See also Doyal v. Sch. Bd. of ... Liberty Cnty. , 415 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. Dist ... Joseph - Werthman v. School Board of Seminole ... County , 599 So.2d 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App ... ...
-
Rudnick v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...a party to the employment relationship. See West v. Troelstrup, 367 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1979); Doyal v. School Board of Liberty County, 415 So.2d 791 (1st DCA 1982). However, Florida courts have also clarified that the privilege to interference "enjoyed by a party that is integ......
-
Paulson v. Cosmetic Dermatology, Inc.
...a party to the employment relationship. See West v. Troelstrup, 367 So. 2d 253, 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Doyal v. School Board of Liberty County, 415 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, Florida courts have also clarified that the privilege to interfere "enjoyed by a party that is integ......
-
In re Murray Industries, Inc.
...says only that the Court "may" award attorney's fees to a successful litigant, Appellant cites Doyal v. School Bd. of Liberty County, 415 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1982), which held that failure to award fees pursuant to § 448.08 was an abuse of discretion. The Court notes, howev......