Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STAT E OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
CHARLES E. MOCK and
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
ORA E. MOCK,
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellants,
CASE NO. 1D03-284
v.
ADAM E. BIGALE and
SHARON A. BIGALE,
Appellees.

/
Opinion filed March 18, 2004.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.
Honorable William L. Wright, Judge.
V. McFadyen, Esquire, of V. McFadyen, P.A., Key West, for Appellants.
Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., Ervin, Chapman & Ervin, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
POLSTON, J.
Appellees brought this action, seeking an accounting of an alleged partnership
with appellants involving various real estate, damages, and specific performance of a

contract for the sale of 100 acres of farmland. After a bench trial, the trial court found
that the parties breached a written agreement and verbal agreements, an "enterprise"
existed, an accounting would be "futile" because of appellants' actions, and there "is
no equitable way to decide this case along strict contract law." Appellants appeal the
trial court's final judgment requiring them to convey ten of their lots on the east side
of the Chipola River to appellees and allowing appellees to select the ten lots they wish
to possess, hold, or resell as they see fit. No counter-appeal was filed by appellees.
Appellants argue that the trial court attempted to achieve what was believed to
be a fair result, but the remedy awarded was improper. In response, appellees state
that the trial court fashioned a proper, equitable remedy by dividing the assets. We
agree with appellants that it appears the trial court improperly attempted to wind up the
affairs of the partnership and distribute its assets without request by the parties or
record support. See Fellman v. Southfield Farms Corp., 747 So. 2d 1035, 1036-37
(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (rejecting an argument for partition of partnership property
because neither party requested it).
Therefore, we reverse the trial court's ruling requiring the distribution of
appellants' ten river lots, without prejudice to subsequent proceedings on claims not
yet brought by the parties under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act of 1995, chapter
620, Florida Statutes. See generally Ortega Travel Servs., Inc. v. Pearson, 765 So. 2d
2

931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (describing dissolution, termination, and winding up of
partnership); Shephard v. Ouellete, 854 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (describing
ownership of partnership property and partition); Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v.
S. Oaks Health Care, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1156, 1159 n.4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (stating that
RUPA, effective January 1, 1996, for general partnerships formed on or after that date,
applies retroactively to general partnerships whenever they were initially formed,
beginning January 1, 1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, C. J., and PADOVANO, J., concur.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE