L. WAYNE LEROUX AND BARBARA L.J. LEROUX, RUSSELL J. MAHY AND CAROLYN R. MAHY, B.M. "MIKE" MILVAIN, AND SHEILA MILLER, APPELLANTS,
v.
NYNEX WORLDWIDE SERVICES GROUP, INC., F/K/A NYNEX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND LEROUX, PITTS & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties' intent in two agreements concerning earnout payments and compensation.
Summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact existed regarding the parties' intent in the Management and Earnout Agreement and Key Employment Compensation Plan.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when material issues of fact exist regarding the parties' intent in contractual agreements.
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 intelligenceAppellants were parties to two agreements with Nynex ISG and LPA involving section 4 of a Management and Earnout Agreement and a Key Employment Compen…
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 Intent Of The Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, L. Wayne Leroux, Barbara L.J. Leroux, Russell J. Mahy, Carolyn R. Mahy, Mike Milvain, and Sheila Miller, who were plaintiffs in the trial court,' appeal the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Nynex Worldwide Services Group, Inc., f/k/a Nynex Informations Solutions Group, Inc. (ISG), and Leroux, Pitts & Associates, Inc. (LPA), defendants in the trial court. The appellants argue that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties’ intent in entering two agreements and that the trial court erred in concluding that the appellants were not entitled to certain payments under the agreements. We agree and reverse.
The relevant portions of the two agreements at issue in this ease involve section 4 of the Management and Earnout Agreement and the Key Employment Compensation Plan for the year 1991. Having thoroughly reviewed the affidavits and depositions involved in this two-year litigation, the briefs filed, and hearing answers to questions propounded by the court during oral argument, we conclude that there are material issues of fact involving both of the above-listed agreements which cannot be resolved by summary judgment. See Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings in the trial court.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tamm v. Bradley, 696 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…s a disputed issue about the extent of the appellee’s role in the fraud and investment violations allegedly perpetrated upon the appellants, the case against the appellee cannot be resolved by summary judgment. Leroux v. Nynex Worldwide Serv. Group, 677 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings in the trial court. DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Watkins DRY Wall, Inc. v. Drummond Court Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)