GOPAL P. MOTWANI AND NIRMLA G. MOTWANI, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
OCEANCITY INVESTMENT, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, GPM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, LBH, INC., VHN, INC., PDGS, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND COASTAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LTD., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 court held that an at-will employee is not entitled to damages for lack of notice of termination, and attorney's fees awarded based on a reversed set-off must also be reversed.
The court reviewed three consolidated appeals concerning a foreclosure judgment, a set-off, and attorney's fees. The trial court amended a final judgm…
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 At-Will Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have consolidated three appeals. The first is from a final judgment of foreclosure, from which appellees have cross-appealed the set-off included therein. Because the final judgment lacked finality due to the indefiniteness of the set-off, we relinquished jurisdiction to cure the omission, which the trial court did by order, thus, in effect, amending the final judgment.
We affirm the trial court’s final judgment, as effectually amended by order, except for the setoff. Mr. Motwani was not entitled to damages as an employee at will; therefore, we reverse that award and remand with direction to strike same from the order and original final judgment. Because we conclude a complete lack of entitlement, there is conflict with Perri v. Byrd, 436 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which held that an employee at will is entitled to reasonable notice of termination, failing which damages would be allowable for the notice period.
The second appeal is from a final judgment to both appellants for attorney’s fees arising out of the set-off in the foreclosure. Our having reversed the set-off, it follows that the award of attorney’s fees to Mr. Motwani must also be reversed and stricken on remand. As Mrs. Motwani was not an employee, the award to her is reversed, there being no basis for any award.
The third is from an order and denial of rehearing involving a claim for attorney’s fees under section 57.105(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The dismissal of counts appropriately occasioned a denial of attorney’s fees in the third appeal as the complaint was not completely dismissed. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PDGS, Ltd. v. Gopal P. Motwani, 729 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge. After the mandate issued in Motwani v. Oceancity Investment, Ltd., 682 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the trial court entered an order on December 10, 1997, purporting to carry out this court’s directions. The primary issue raised on appeal from that order is whether it did, in fact, comply with the mandate. We find that it did…
Authorities Cited
- Perri v. Byrd, 436 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)