Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart
| Decision Date | 03 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BF-374,BF-374 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 129 PAUL H. COWART/BUILDING SPECIALTY and Whiting National Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Annette COWART, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. Thomas Ferrar, Altamonte Springs, for appellants.
Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley and Edward H. Hurt, Sr. of Hurt, Parrish & Dalton, Orlando, for appellee.
In this appeal the sole contention of the appellant employer/carrier is that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred in calculating the claimant's average weekly wage (AWW). We agree and reverse.
The claimant testified that she is the sole employee of her husband's carpet and floor coverings installation business. Both the claimant and her husband indicated that the husband subcontracts to perform installation work for carpet dealers and contractors, and that the husband is paid on the basis of the number of yards of carpet and vinyl that he lays each week. He must pay his own expenses, e.g., for his van and tools, and for installation materials such as glue, carpet tape, etc. Both the claimant and her husband testified that their employment agreement required that the claimant be paid 40 percent of the income of the business, and that all business expenses be paid by the husband out of his 60 percent share.
Both in deposition and at the hearing the claimant gave somewhat contradictory testimony, at times indicating that she received 40 percent of the net income of the business, and at other times indicating that she received 40 percent of the gross. In his deposition the husband also gave somewhat contradictory testimony on the question whether the claimant received 40 percent of the gross receipts of the business or 40 percent of the net. However, the clear import of the testimony of both the claimant and her husband was that she was paid 40 percent of the gross, and both she and her husband unequivocally testified that all business expenses were paid by the husband. By contrast, the joint income tax returns of the claimant and her husband for the years 1981, 1982, and 1983 showed that the claimant and her husband respectively received 40 percent and 60 percent of the net income from the business. The tax returns further showed that the expenses of the business for the period 1981 through 1983 averaged 65.7 percent of the gross receipts. Although the husband testified that the tax returns were prepared by his accountant, and that the allocation of income therein did not reflect the actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Gaineswood Condominiums, 87-1236
...the testimony of a witness merely because that witness is competent to testify on a given subject. Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Nevertheless, where, as in the instant case, the issue before the deputy involves essentially a medical quest......
-
Regal Marine Industries v. Cappucci
...the claimant earned $590.00 during the 13 weeks prior to the accident in his mobile home park employment. Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). There appears to be little reason why the father, as manager of one of the employer's parks, could not obt......
-
Western Auto v. Moore, 89-509
...testimony so long as that testimony is competent, substantial, and consistent with logic and reason. Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Regal Marine Industries v. Cappucci, 523 So.2d 766, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA In Paul H. Cowart/Building, supra, an......
-
Gayfers v. Jones, 91-3749
...A finding of compensability on the basis of the instant record fails to accord with logic and reason. See Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Therefore, we KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. ...