Weinsier v. Soffer
| Decision Date | 18 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-124,77-124 |
| Parties | James WEINSIER and George Johnnides, Appellants, v. Donald SOFFER, Steven Weinsier and Joni Weinsier, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Koeppel, Stark & Newmark, Joe N. Unger, Miami, for appellants.
Bartel, Levine & Shuford, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.
James Weinsier and George Johnnides, defendants in the trial court, appeal a final judgment entered after a trial before the court without jury. Steven Weinsier and Joni Weinsier were also defendants, and judgment was entered against them. They have not appealed. Donald Soffer was the plaintiff. His complaint sought recovery against the defendants for a share of the financial losses Soffer suffered as a result of loans made to a corporation known as the Monza Boat Company. The court found that Soffer and the defendants had agreed to obligate themselves for the capital requirements of Monza Boat Company and for losses suffered in the business.
In its "Order Clarifying Final Judgment," the court stated:
Thus, the judgments against defendants James Weinsier and George Johnnides, each in the amount of $24,542.60, represented 20% of the losses on Monza Boat Company in proportion to the stock owned which it was claimed had been guaranteed by defendants as of January 15, 1973, the date on which the defendants terminated their relationship with the company.
The facts giving rise to these final judgments can be summarized as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the two appellants, as well as against Steven Weinsier and Joni Weinsier, his wife. In pertinent part, the three-count complaint stated:
The defendants answered, asserting as an affirmative defense the statute of frauds.
In 1971, defendant Steven Weinsier acquired an option to purchase the assets of Monza Marine, Inc., which was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling boats.
Upon the formation of the new business, Monza Boat Company, defendants Steven Weinsier, James Weinsier and George Johnnides each owned a 20% interest. Plaintiff Donald Soffer became the owner of a 40% share of the business. As testified to by the plaintiff, the defendants acknowledge their liability for losses. When Monza required capital for its operation, the plaintiff was immediately called upon. During the life of Monza, defendant Steven Weinsier contributed solely the sum of $2,876.90, while his brother, James Weinsier, and his partner in other enterprises, George Johnnides, contributed nothing. In late August or early September 1971, the plaintiff and defendants allegedly entered into a written capital contribution agreement whereby the participants in the new boat manufacturing enterprise, Monza Boat Company, would ratably share in the profits and losses of the business based upon alleged percentages.
The plaintiff testified that the writing in question was prepared by the law firm of Lawrence C. Porter and was executed by the plaintiff and all defendants in September, 1971, in Miami, Florida. Thereafter, Donald Soffer testified that he filed his copy of the agreement in his temporary offices at Aventura Trailers, located at 19901 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida.
Plaintiff testified that his sole copy of the written agreement was destroyed in a 1974 fire at the Aventura Trailer office. A demand for production of copies of the agreement from the defendants was met by their denial that the agreement existed. Plaintiff also sought a copy of the capital contribution agreement from the office of attorney Lawrence C. Porter. Mr. Porter was unable to locate the document or to recall having drafted it.
The trial court based its decision upon the testimony of plaintiff Donald Soffer and entered its final judgment in favor of plaintiff Soffer and against the defendants. This appeal followed.
The first question to be considered is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topp, Inc. v. Uniden American Corp.
...agreement to own and operate a recreational vehicle dealership which was to last forever. Id. at 537. Similarly in Weinsier v. Soifer, 358 So.2d 61 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 365 So.2d (Fla.1978), the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, based on an oral agreement that ......
-
Starry Const. Co., Inc. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
...v. Shaffer, 310 F.2d 668, 675 (10th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 948, 83 S.Ct. 1678, 10 L.Ed.2d 704 (1963); see Weinsier v. Soffer, 358 So.2d 61, 63 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 714 (Fla.1978). The oral testimony of the plaintiff does not constitute a writing sufficient......
-
American Honda Motor v. Motorcycle Info. Network
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 29. Weinsier v. Soffer, 358 So.2d 61, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). See also, Khawly, 488 So.2d at 858; Bross, 600 So.2d at 30. See, e.g., Weinsier, 358 So.2d at 63 (judgment after benc......
-
Browning v. Poirier
...business was barred by the statute of frauds, as parties intended business to continue for more than one year); Weinsier v. Soffer, 358 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (holding that oral agreement to enter into business and share losses in ongoing business that was to continue indefinitely was ......