Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Egan v. Chammas
Citations: 544 So. 2d 1170; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1454; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3393; 1989 WL 63395Docket: No. 88-2347
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 15, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in a dispute between Fredericko Chammas and Jack Egan regarding their limited partnership, Americor Heathrow, Ltd. Chammas acquired ten lots in Seminole County and was to contribute $240,000 to the partnership, while Egan was initially to contribute $60,000 but claimed he was excused from this obligation. Discrepancies arose over fund withdrawals from partnership accounts, the hiring of a contractor, and the management of construction funds. Egan opened separate accounts without Chammas's access and later alleged issues with the contractor, Sencorp, which Chammas claims stopped work due to non-payment. Chammas filed multiple counts against Egan, including claims for return of partnership contributions, civil theft, constructive trust, injunctions, fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and replevin. Egan admitted to being verbally excused from his contribution obligation. The trial court granted Chammas's motion for summary judgment, which Egan appealed, arguing that numerous significant facts remain disputed, making summary judgment inappropriate. Chammas had the burden to prove that no genuine issues of material fact existed in the summary judgment proceeding. Egan was not required to respond with affidavits if Chammas failed to meet this burden. Egan disputed several facts through his deposition and pleadings, including: 1) whether Chammas waived the partnership requirement regarding Egan's $60,000 contribution; 2) the reasons Sencorp ceased work on the residence; 3) the appropriateness of Egan's claimed expenses within a potential $10,000 monthly allowance; 4) the specific funds used for construction costs; and 5) the computation of damages post-resolution of factual disputes. Consequently, the summary judgment favoring Chammas and Chammas Realty Corp. was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The trial court is to consider severing Count I (return of partnership contribution), Count VI (conversion of property), and Count VII (breach of fiduciary duty) or allowing one of the plaintiffs to be dropped as per Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.250(b). The decision was reversed and remanded, with concurrence from C.J. Sharp and J. Dauksh.