Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 26, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves Tanfield C. Miller and Helen A. Miller as appellants against Dr. Bruce S. Selden, who was terminated from a professional association (P.A.) he formed with Dr. Walter Fingerer and Dr. George Roffman. The termination was strategically timed to prevent Selden from accruing benefits due to him under his employment agreement. Selden pursued legal action against the remaining doctors, their attorney, and the Millers, claiming negligence, intentional interference with an employment contract, and conspiracy to interfere with that contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Selden on all counts against the Millers. However, it was noted that Helen Miller had no allegations of wrongdoing against her. The court acknowledged an error regarding Helen's liability. Selden's claims against Tanfield Miller centered on alleged negligence in his accounting duties, asserting that Miller's actions contributed to his early termination and subsequent financial losses. Evidence showed Miller's involvement in discussions about the termination and changes to the P.A.'s documentation that facilitated it. The case hinges on whether Miller's potential breach of duty directly caused Selden's claimed damages.
Miller did not advise or influence the early termination of Selden's employment, nor was he involved in the management of the professional association, which was solely led by Fingerer and Roffman. There is no evidence indicating that Miller would benefit from Selden's termination. The lack of proximate cause negates any negligence claim against Miller, and the trial court's ruling lacks substantial evidence necessitating reversal. To establish intentional interference with contractual relations, three elements must be proven: existence of a business relationship, intentional and unjustified interference, and resulting damages. However, there is no evidence that Miller interfered with Selden's employment, leading to insufficient proof for this claim as well. Additionally, without evidence of intent to interfere, no conspiracy can be established.
Counts IV and V relate to Selden purchasing an interest in a limited partnership from the Millers for tax benefits. Selden paid $33,500 of a $50,000 purchase price, with the Millers covering the remaining balance. Despite the incomplete transfer, Selden benefited from tax deductions totaling $80,399, resulting in a tax savings of over $40,000. As there is no evidence of financial loss or disallowed deductions, Selden suffered no money damages. The issue of set-off is moot based on these findings. The court reverses and remands for judgment in favor of the appellants on all counts.
