BJ OF LEESBURG, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
PETER COFFMAN, 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.
BJ of Leesburg appealed the denial of its contempt motion against former employee Peter Coffman for violating a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied the contempt motion by reinterpreting the stipulated judgment to require highway mileage rather than straight-line radius distance. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plain language of the judgment—using the term "radius"—is unambiguous and must be interpreted literally.
The court held that the plain and unambiguous language of "radius" in the judgment must be given its literal meaning and cannot be reinterpreted based on discussions during settlement negotiations. The term "radius" is a standard, unambiguous method of measuring distance in non-compete agreements and has nothing to do with road mileage.
[1] A trial court errs by interpreting a plain and unambiguous judgment beyond its literal meaning.
[2] A stipulated judgment's plain and unambiguous language must be given its literal meaning.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the language employed in a judgment is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation and the language must be given its literal meaning.”
Establishes the primary interpretive rule that plain language in judgments cannot be reinterpreted despite settlement discussions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBJ of Leesburg sued its former employee Coffman for breaching a non-compete agreement by operating a dance studio within the restricted area. The part…
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 Breach Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The appellant, BJ of Leesburg, Inc., appeals the denial of its motion for an order of contempt against the appellee, Peter Coff-man, for violation of a breach of a non-compete agreement. We reverse.
Appellant sued appellee, a former employee, for injunctive relief contending that appellee breached their non-compete agreement by operating a dance studio within 35 miles of appellant’s studio. The parties settled that suit by stipulating to a final judgment that enjoined appellee from engaging in the same business as appellant “within a ten (10) mile radius of [appellant’s] present place of business.”
Almost 18 months after the stipulated final judgment, appellant moved for the order of contempt that was denied by the trial court and which is the subject of this appeal. The order recited that appellee’s business was within a ten mile radius of appellant’s business but that the highway mileage distance between the two points was greater than ten miles. Evidently, transportation corridors would require one who traveled by auto between the two studios to travel a route longer than ten miles. In denying the motion for contempt, the trial court went beyond the stipulated judgment and ruled that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds when they entered the stipulation because the original trial transcript reflected a “discussion of highway mileage.”
While there may have been a discussion of highway mileage while the parties were negotiating, the final agreement did not employ any language that would allow one to conclude that such a measure of distance was finally agreed upon. If the language employed in a judgment is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation and the language must be given its literal meaning. Boynton v. Canal Authority, 311 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Here, the use of the term “radius” is plain and unambiguous, and has nothing to do with road mileage. Radius is a common method used in describing areas within which non-competing operations may not be conducted and is capable of being calculated with precision.
We quash the order denying the motion for order of contempt and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED; REMANDED.
DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCANN v. Walker, 852 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…that the order modifying the .original final judgment of dissolution was ambiguous and that it was necessary to review the former wife’s original petition to relocate in order to resolve the ambiguity. This court in BJ of Leesburg, Inc. v. Coffman, 642 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), citing Boynton v. Canal Authority, 311 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), held that “[i]f the language employed in a judgment is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation and the language m…
Authorities Cited
- Boynton v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 311 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)