MARTINEZ v. LIEBERMAN (2006)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Guillermo MARTINEZ and Pablo Liberatori, Appellants, v. Larry LIEBERMAN, Appellee.

No. 3D05-1717.

Decided: January 25, 2006

Before RAMIREZ, SHEPHERD, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

Wendell T. Locke, Pembroke Pines, for appellants. Larry Lieberman, for appellee.

This is an appeal of a final judgment based on Larry Lieberman's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Amended Complaint for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealings, and breach of fiduciary duty was based on an alleged oral partnership agreement. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of frauds. We reverse.

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be ‘decided on the pleadings only.’ ” New Vista Dev. Corp. v. Doral Terrace Assocs., Ltd., 878 So.2d 462, 464-65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Under section 725.01, Florida Statutes (2004), any agreement that is not to be performed within one year is barred unless it is in writing. There is nothing in the pleadings to establish that the partnership was not to be performed within a year. At best, this was an oral contract for an indefinite time which is not barred by the Statute of Frauds. See Elliot v. Carl H. Winslow, Jr., P.A., 737 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network