Khawly v. Reboul, No. 85-1662
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | DANIEL S. PEARSON |
| Citation | 488 So.2d 856,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1060 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1060 James F. KHAWLY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Evelyne REBOUL and Jean Claude Reboul, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Evelyne REBOUL and Jean Claude Reboul, Cross-Appellants, v. Kareen RICHARD and Michael Bodne, Cross-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1662 |
Page 856
v.
Evelyne REBOUL and Jean Claude Reboul, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Evelyne REBOUL and Jean Claude Reboul, Cross-Appellants,
v.
Kareen RICHARD and Michael Bodne, Cross-Appellees.
Third District.
Page 857
Weintraub & Rosen and Lee I. Weintraub and Michael A. Rosen, Miami, for appellant and cross-appellees.
Wallace, Engels & Pertnoy and Gregory A. Martin and Douglas J. Snyder, Miami, for appellees/cross-appellants.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Khawly, one of three defendants below, appeals from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding the Rebouls monetary damages in this breach of contract action. The Rebouls cross-appeal from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of the remaining two defendants, Bodne and Richard. Our conclusion that the statute of frauds barred the Rebouls' breach of contract claim against all of the defendants is dispositive of the appeal and cross-appeal. 1 On the main appeal, we reverse with directions to enter judgment for Khawly; on the cross-appeal, we affirm the judgment for Bodne and Richard.
The Rebouls alleged in their complaint that in April 1982, they and the defendants orally agreed to go into the retail sportswear business, and, for that purpose, to form a corporation in which the Rebouls would own the controlling interest, that is, fifty percent (50%) plus one (1) share of the stock. The Rebouls were to be in charge of opening and managing the store and to receive a monthly salary; the defendants
Page 858
were investors and lenders only. Shortly after the agreement was entered into, a corporation was formed, a three-year leasehold purchased, and, in July 1982, a store opened. The Rebouls actively managed the store until January 1983 when they were ousted from their position by some of the defendants.There was little dispute that much of what the Rebouls say occurred, did. What was disputed is what interest in the corporation the Rebouls were to receive. The defendants contended that the agreement was that the Rebouls were to receive a forty percent interest in the corporation, precisely what they did receive. 2
Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), Florida's statute of frauds, provides in pertinent part:
"No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof ..., unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized."
The Florida Supreme Court first gave life to this statute in Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937). It there held that
"when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object to be accomplished by it and the surrounding circumstances, it clearly appears that the party intended that it should extend for a longer period than a year, it is within the statute of frauds, though it cannot be said that there is any impossibility preventing its performance within a year."
Id. at 139, 181 So. at 344.
Thus, to determine whether the statute of frauds bars enforcement of an oral contract on the ground that it is not to be performed within one year, we look to the intent of the parties.
Our review of the entire record convinces us that the parties intended to establish an ongoing concern, to extend well beyond a year. First, the complaint alleges that the parties "agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of entering into the business of retail sales of sportswear." Second, the parties entered into a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., No. 94-3324
...be performed within one year, and the enforcement of that guarantee is thus barred by Florida's statute of frauds. Cf. Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding that statute of frauds barred both breach of contract and fraud in the inducement claims because alleged oral ag......
-
Kleiman v. Wright, Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart
...363, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); but see LynkUs Commc'ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So.2d 1161, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).Id. at 665-66 (emphasis in original). See also Alpha Data Corp. v. HX5, L.L.C., 139 So. 3d 907, 909-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 20......
-
American Honda Motor v. Motorcycle Info. Network, No. 5:04-cv-12-Oc-10GRJ.
...(M.D.Fla.1989) (Melton, J). 28. First Realty Inv. Corp. v. Gallaher, 345 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also, Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bross v. Wallace, 600 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 ......
-
Grondin v. Rossington, No. 88 Civ. 3192 (RWS).
...date is to be performed within one year, the court, under Florida law, must look to the intent of the parties. See Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). As the Florida Supreme Court when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object ......
-
Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., No. 94-3324
...be performed within one year, and the enforcement of that guarantee is thus barred by Florida's statute of frauds. Cf. Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding that statute of frauds barred both breach of contract and fraud in the inducement claims because alleged oral ag......
-
Kleiman v. Wright, Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart
...363, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); but see LynkUs Commc'ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So.2d 1161, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).Id. at 665-66 (emphasis in original). See also Alpha Data Corp. v. HX5, L.L.C., 139 So. 3d 907, 909-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 20......
-
American Honda Motor v. Motorcycle Info. Network, No. 5:04-cv-12-Oc-10GRJ.
...(M.D.Fla.1989) (Melton, J). 28. First Realty Inv. Corp. v. Gallaher, 345 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also, Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Bross v. Wallace, 600 So.2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 ......
-
Grondin v. Rossington, No. 88 Civ. 3192 (RWS).
...date is to be performed within one year, the court, under Florida law, must look to the intent of the parties. See Khawly v. Reboul, 488 So.2d 856 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). As the Florida Supreme Court when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object ......