Case ID: so2d_644/html/0180-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GRIFFIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linda MILLS, p/k/a Linda Sorrell, etc., Appellant, v. Donna M. WORMSER and Donna M. Wormser, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 94-220.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Oct. 28, 1994.
    Chester J. Trow of Landt & Trow, Ocala, for appellant.
    Larry Collins, Ocala, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

GRIFFIN, J., dissents, with opinion.

GRIFFIN, Judge,

dissenting.

Appellant has a big problem. She failed to appeal a judgment that both suspended operation of appellee’s seven-year non-eompete agreement (based on appellant’s failure to pay the agreed consideration for the non-compete agreement) and awarded appellee damages for the value of the non-compete agreement. No election of remedy was evidently required. On the face of the judgment, therefore, it appears appellee can both compete with appellant and recover as damages the entire amount appellant agreed to pay her for not competing. The judgment does not explain whether or how the amount owed under the judgment would be adjusted for the period of competition prior to payment. Nor does it provide for relief from payment if appellee continues to compete for all or part of the seven-year term. Appellant now seeks relief through a declaratory judgment or Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Contrary to the majority and notwithstanding appellant’s failure to appeal the original final judgment, I think appellant should have access to the court to obtain a clarification of the ambiguity that is latent in the original judgment, including how the judgment will be satisfied if the non-eompete remains suspended.