ELLEN GRAPPONE, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ellen Grappone appealed the dismissal of her breach of contract claim against the City of Miami Beach. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, finding the employment contract contained only language of expectation rather than a definite term of employment. The appellate court reversed, holding that the contract provided a definite period of employment terminating upon the return of the regular secretary from maternity leave.
The court held that Grappone's contract provided a definite period of employment because it commenced on a day certain and terminated upon a future contingent event—the return of the regular secretary. The contract itself stated it was "a personal services contract for a definite period of time," and therefore constituted more than mere language of expectation.
[1] An employment contract that specifies a commencement date and termination upon a future contingent event provides for a definite term of employment.
[2] A contract for employment without a definite term is terminable at will, precluding a breach of contract action.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a contract does not provide for a definite term of employment, the contract is terminable at will.”
Establishes the foundational legal rule that terminable-at-will contracts cannot support breach of contract claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrappone entered into a written employment contract with the City of Miami Beach to serve as a temporary marketing secretary from April 8, 1985, until…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Definite Term Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Ellen Grappone from an order of the trial court dismissing her breach of contract claim against the City of Miami Beach for failure to state a cause of action. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
Grappone and the City of Miami Beach entered into a written employment contract which provided that she would serve as a temporary marketing secretary for a period commencing April 8, 1985, and ending upon the return of the regular secretary who was on a six-month maternity leave. The maternity leave was scheduled to end on October 8, 1985, although on September 9, 1985, it was subsequently extended for an additional six months until April 8,1986.
On October 4, 1985, the City abolished the position of marketing secretary. That same day, as a consequence of the abolition of this position, Grappone, the substitute secretary, was fired. Grappone filed an action for breach of contract, and the City moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
The trial court granted the City’s motion and dismissed the cause with prejudice.
When a contract does not provide for a definite term of employment, the contract is terminable at will. Maines v. Davis, 491 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Without a definite term of employment, a breach of contract action cannot be maintained. Smith v. Piezo Technology & Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla.1983).
The trial court, in its order, specifically found “that the language in the purported employment contract, attached as an exhibit to the Complaint as an ‘Agreement’, contains mere ‘language of expectation’, rather than a term of definite employment. Language of expectation provides for no definite term of employment.” In reaching its conclusion the trial court relied upon Maguire v. American Life Assurance Co., 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984).
In Maguire, the employee did not have a contract for a specific term of employment.
On appeal, the City contends that Grappone’s contract also did not provide for a specific term of employment and that, therefore, the trial court correctly applied Maguire.
We disagree. In the present case, the written contract provides, albeit somewhat circuitously, for a definite period of employment. By its terms the contract commences on a day certain and terminates upon a future contingent event, i.e., the return of the regular secretary. Paragraph 3 of the contract acknowledges that it “is a personal services contract for a definite period of time.” Maguire is clearly inapposite, and the City will be bound by the declarations contained in the document it drafted. See American Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 309 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 321 So. 2d 558 (Fla.1975).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raoul Vienneau v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…, 530 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Florida has long adhered to the rule that an employment contract which does not provide for a definite term of employment is terminable at the will of either party without cause. Grappone v. City of Miami Beach, 495 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Nunes v. Margate General Hospital, Inc., 435 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. v. Deschenes, 409 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Under these circumstances, the employment is considered to be indefini…
-
Kelly v. Gill, 544 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…without cause and an action for wrongful discharge will not lie. Smith v. Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983); Gibbs v. H.J. Heinz Company, 536 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Grappone v. City of Miami Beach, 495 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); McConnell v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 499 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Muller v. Stromberg, Carlson Corporation, 427 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. v. Deschenes, 409 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).…
-
Iniguez v. Am. Hotel Register Co., 820 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…rally terminable at will by either party; however, when a contract for employment provides a definite duration, the employment contract is enforceable. Story v. Culverhouse, 727 So. 2d 1128, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Grappone v. City of, Miami Beach, 495 So. 2d 838, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Finally, the interpretation of the contract should be consistent with reason, probability and the practical aspect of the transaction. Maines, 491 So. 2d at 1234. Applying the foregoing principles, we find that there is a l…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
- Am. Agronomics Corp. v. Ross, 309 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Stewart v. State, 491 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Balint Papp v. Conser, 321 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1975)
- Echeverria v. Barczak, 321 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1975)
- Jaffe v. Adolph Schwartz, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- West v. State, 442 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)