RICHARD J. POTTER, APPELLANT,
v.
J R OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A CONTRAX FURNISHINGS, APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed judgment for employer where trial court found employee had drawn more in advances than earned in commissions under oral employment agreement, with defense of payment properly pled and proved.
An employer's defense of payment is properly supported when competent, substantial evidence shows the employee received advances against future commissions exceeding amounts actually earned.
[1] Payment is a valid defense to an employment compensation claim when competent, substantial evidence establishes that advances against future commissions exceeded amounts…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePotter, an employee, sued his employer for monies allegedly due under an oral employment agreement. The trial court found Potter had drawn $41,064 mor…
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 Oral Employment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff employee from a final judgment for the defendant employer in a suit for monies allegedly due under an oral employment agreement. In the judgment, the trial court found that “no monies of any nature were due Potter from Contrax at the time of the filing of the suit,” at which time Potter “had drawn $41,064 more than he had actually earned,” and that “it is still dubious, much less unproven (sic), that even today Potter has vested sufficient commissions to equal the monies that have been advanced by Con-trax against future commissions.”
Although the parties presented conflicting versions of the agreement, the trial court’s findings regarding the amount of compensation actually paid Potter in draws against prospective commissions, the methodology for calculating the commissions, the point at which the commissions vested, and whether Potter was entitled to overage commissions on specific projects, were supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
Notwithstanding that the trial court apparently based its decision on the theory of abatement, citing cases factually distinguishable from the case at issue, we find that the defense of payment was properly pled and proved, and that the requisite findings were made in the final judgment to support that defense. We note that the final judgment provides that it “shall not preclude RICHARD J. POTTER from bringing a future action against J R OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT CO., INC., should his vested commissions exceed the draws advanced against those commissions.”
AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.