FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 60 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 4- cv -0 00 40 -EAK-MAP LYNN D. STEWART, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt Co un te r Defen da nt ,

ve rs us HOOTERS OF AMERICA, INC. Defen da nt- App el le eCo un te r Cl ai m an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 11 60 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 4- cv -0 00 40 -EAK-MAP LYNN D. STEWART, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll eeCo un te r Defen da nt , ve rs usHOOTERS OF AMERICA, INC. Defen da nt- App el la nt Co un te r Cl ai m an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 2 8, 2 01 1) Befo re MAR TIN andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andRESTANI, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se in vo lv es a di sp ut e o ve r a co nt ractforpa ym en t fo r certa in servi ces pr ov id edby one of t he ori gi na l fo un de rs of Ho ot ers Res taur an ts , Ly nn D. Stewar t (“ St ewart ”), t o Ho ot ers of Am eri ca, In c. (“ HOA”). Ent eredin to in 19 95 , th e Adm in is tra ti ve Serv ic es Agre em en t (“ ASA”) s ta te d t ha t HOA ag reedto pa y St ewartan nu al ly from

19 95 to 20 00 an am ou ntequa l t o c ert ai n p erce nt ag es of HOA’ s an nu al “ Gro ss Sal es .” St ewartsu edHOA in 2 00 4 fo r br each of c on tra ctan d fo r an acco un ti ng of th e ex actam ou ntSte wartcla im edHOA owedhi m . Stewa rt c la im edth atHOA did
no t i nc lu de in it s “ Gro ss Sal es ” cal cu la ti on m on ey fro m m ark et in g i nc om e; HOA

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, J udg e of the United States Court of Interna tional Trade , * sitti ngby designation. 2m an ag em en t, fra nc hi se , androyalt y fees ; m ag azi ne sal es ; an d i nc om e fro m Nati on al Gol f, Supe r Sp or ts , andHoo te rs Raci ng subs id ia rie s. HOA ass ert ed St ewartlac ke d s ta nd in g, d en ie d i t o wedSte wartan yth in g u nd er h is bre ach of
co nt ractcla im , ass ert edan affi rm at iv e d efen se of c om pl et e p aym en t u nd er t he
co nt ract , andals o a ss ert eda co un te rcl ai m , arg ui ng th atHOA, in ca lc ul at in g t he
am ou ntdu e St ewart , hadm is ta ke nl y in cl ud edsal es fro m

un affi li at edown ers of Hoo te rs Res taur an ts —Ho ot ers , Inc ., Lages hu lt e Ent erp ris es (“ Lag es hu lt e”), an d East ern Fo od s—wit hi n t he de fin it io n o f “ Gro ss Sal es ” an d t he reb y ov erp ai d St ewart , wher efo re St ewartwas o wedno th in g o n t he co nt ract . After abe nc h t ria l, th e d is tri ctco ur t fo un d i n fa vo r of Ste warton hi s b reac h o f co nt ractcla im . See St ewartv. Ho ot ers of Am ., Inc ., No. 8: 04 -cv -4 0- T-17 MAP, 2 00 7 WL 35 28 68 5, at *9 (M.D. Fl a. Nov . 15 20 07 ). The d is tri ctco ur t al so fou ndin fav orof HOA o n i ts
reco up m en t co un te rcl ai m , ho ld in g t ha t HOA ha d v ol un ta ril y ov erp ai d S te wart
un de r a m is ta ke of l aw. See i d. Th e “ da m ag es ” o ff-s etan d n ei th er p art y
reco ve red . At St ewart ’s reque stth e d is tri ctco urt awa rd edhi m co ur t co st s. Bo th pa rti es no w app eal
. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r an d re vi ew fin di ng s o f la w de n ov o. Se e Ren te ria -Ma rin v. Ag -Ma rt P ro du ce, In c., 53 7 F .3d 13 21 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ W e rev ie w award s o f . . . cos ts for ab us e o f
3di sc ret io n, re vi si ti ng qu es ti on s o f la w de n ov o a ndrev ie win g fi nd in gs of f actfor cl ear e rro r.” Kah an e v . UNUM Life In s. Co ., 56 3 F .3d12 10 , 12 13 (11 th Cir
. 20 09 ). CAPACITY TO B RING ACTI ON St ewartha s capa ci ty to b rin g t hi s ac ti on be cau se th e d is tri ctco ur t co rrec tl y fo un d a n o ral ass ig nm en t re as si gn in g S te wart ’s rig ht s b ackto hi m . HOA alle ge s 1 th is ass ig nm en t m

us t h av e b een in writ in g. Und er Fl or id a la w, an as si gn m en t 2
ne edno t b e in writ in g. Ma ng um v. Su ss er, 7 64 So .2d65 3, 6 55 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App
. 20 00 ) (fi nd in g n o l aw req ui rin g a n a ss ig nm en t t o b e in writ in g t o b e la wfu l); see Bo ul ev ardNat’l Ba nkof M ia m i v . Air Me ta l In du s., In c., 17 6 S o. 2 d 9 4, 9 7– 98 (Fl a. 19 65 ) (wri tt en ass ig nm en t o f a co nt ractis no t re qu ire d) . Here, ev id en ce o n th e rec or d s ho ws t ha t the co nt ractwas o ral ly ass ig ne d b ackto Ste wart . Thu s, we ho ldth e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t err in fin di ng a va li d o ral ass ig nm en t u nd er Fl or id a
Neither party contests that Flor ida law a pplies to this i ssue. 1 HOA a lso arg

ues that bec ause the assig nment materia lly alters the c ontrac t, the ASA 2 clause requiringamendments to be in wr iting should also apply to all assignme nts. “An assig nment [i s] defined as a tr ansfe r or se tting over of prope rty ,” Cont. Cas. Co. v. Ry an I nc. E., 974 So.2d 368, 376 (Fla. 2008) (citingBla ck’s L aw Dic tionary 128 (8th ed. 2004)) (interna l quotation marks omitted), wher eas a n amendment is a “ a cha

ng e made by

addition, deletion, or corr ection” or

“an a lteration in wording ,” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary (9th ed. 2009). T he contr act betwee n the par

ties in the instant case pr ovides for a ssignments a nd amendments in two sepa rate provisions of the contra ct. B eca use the pa rties distinguished be tween a ssignments a nd amendments, a

nd beca use an a ssignment doe s not modify , delete, or add to the provisions of the contra ct but rathe r re direc ts the rights descendingfrom the doc ument, the assig nment in the instant case is not an a

mendment. 4la w. 3 CONTRACT DIS PUTE

Befo re t he di st ric t co ur t, St ewartco m pl ai ne d t ha t HOA br each edth e ASA be cau se HOA had“ fai le d t o p ay Mr. St ewartall th e su m s HOA o we[d ] to hi m
un de r th e Agr eem en t,” t ha t “ fai lu re t o p ay Mr. St ewartth e su m s o wedun de r th e Agr eem en t co ns ti tu te s a b reac h o f th e Agr eem en t b y HOA,” and“ [a]s a re su ltof HOA brea ch in g t he Agre em en t, Mr . Ste wartha s s uf fere d d am ag es .” HOA’ s R E Tab 1, at3 ¶¶12 –1 4. Th e d is tri ctco ur t re as on edth atth e tr ia l re co rdin di cat edby a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t the de du ct io n o f cre di t ca rdfees was im pr op er an d c ert ai n e nt it ie s q ua li fie d a s s ub si di ari es bu t wer e im pr op erl y
ex cl ud edfro m

pa ym en t ca lc ul at io ns . Stewa rt, 2 00 7 WL 35 28 68 5, at*9 . The di st ric t co ur t t he n s en t t he is su e o f “ [w]het he r HOA fail edto pa y Mr. St ewartall th e m on ie s due in acco rd an ce wi th th e h erei n c on st ru edterm s o f th e ASA,” id . at *1 2, t o asp eci al m as te r. Bas edon th e sp eci al m as te r’s cal cu la ti on s, t he di st ric t
co ur t s ta te d i n i ts fin al jud gm en t t ha t “ HOA do es no t o we an y ad di ti on al m on ie s t o Mr. St ewart .” Fin al J. 1 2 (F eb . 22 , 20 10 ) (St ewartv. Ho ot ers of Am ., Inc ., 8: 04
-

HOA a lso claims that the assignment must be in writing in orde r to comply with the 3 Statute of Fr auds. See F la. Stat. § 725.01. Florida la w re quires written assignme nts only when specifie d by

either c ontrac t or by

statute. See supra

pp. 3–4. The orig inal contra ct was in wr iting in compliance w ith the Statute of Fra uds. 5cv -0 00 40 -EAK-MAP, Do ck etNo. 2 44 ).

In ord er fo r St ewartto pre va il on hi s co m pl ai nt , Ste wartm

us t s ho w th at HOA “ fai le d t o p ay

Mr. St ewartall th e su m s HOA o we[d ] to hi m un de r th e Agr eem en t.” HOA’s RE Tab 1 , at 3 ¶ 12 . HOA ha d aco nt ract ua l dut y to pa y Mr. St ewart0.7 33 5% o f th e fi rs t $ 30 0 m il li on in Gros s Sa le s an d 1 % of Gro ss Sal es in
ex ces s o f $3 00 m il li on . Stewa rt r eque st edan acco un ti ng un de r th e co nt ract , and he rece iv editth ro ug h t he pro ceed in gs be fo re t he sp eci al m as te r. See Fo res t Vi ll as Co nd o. As s’n, In c. v. Ca m eri o, 4 22 S.E.2d88 4, 8 87 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 92 ) (“ A leg al
acco un ti ng m ay

be anap pr op ria te st ep in de te rm in in g t he am ou ntof d am ag es in a br each of c on tra ctact io n i n aco ur t o f la w.”) (ci ti ng Giffo rdv. J ack so n, 1 54 S.E.2d 22 4 (Ga . 19 67 )). The accu racy of th e res ul ti ng cal cu la ti on is no t ch al le ng ed . The sp eci al m as te r’s fin di ng th atHOA didno t o we an y ad di ti on al m on ey

to Ste wart de m on st rat ed

—i n d ire ctco nt rad ic ti on to Ste wart ’s com pl ai nt—tha t St ewartha d
rece iv edth atwhi chHOA owedhi m un de r th e Agr eem en t. To a wardda m ag es whe n a n a cco un ti ng un de r th e co nt ractsh owe d n ot hi ng was o wedwou ldbe un jus t. St ewart ’s com

pl ai ntwas tha t h e h adno t re cei ve d wh atwas o wedto hi m
un de r th e co nt ract . The ac co un ti ng sh owe d t ha t h e d id , th us th e d is tri ctco ur t d id
no t err in fin di ng th atSte wartha d re cei ve d wh atwas o wedto hi m un de r th e

6co nt ract . 3 COURT COST S

The di st ric t co ur t awa rd edSte wartco st s i n t he am ou ntof $ 13 ,12 1.6 0. Se e Fed . R. Civ . Pro c. 54 (d )(1 ). Becaus e St ewartis no t t he pre va il in g p art y , Ste wartis
no t en ti tl edto co st s. See id .; Nan ce v . Max well Fed . Cred itUni on , 18 6 F .3d13 38 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ Bec au se we ha ve va cat edth e p la in ti ff’s d am ag es award , th ere i s n ot hi ng in th e jud gm en t t ha t ca n b e en fo rced .”).

Be cause we do not re ach the claim of re coupment, we need not c onsider the pa rties’ 3 arguments reg ardingvoluntary pay ment and mistake of la

w, Stewar t’s burden of

proof c laim, or Stewart’s motions for r econside ration, to alter/amend judg ment, and for a new trial based on the same leg al ar guments, except to the following e x tent. In the context of its claim that the district court c orre ctly

applied the e x ception to the voluntary pay ment doctrine to its rec oupment, HOA argues that, “[t] he re sult advance d by Stewart’s a

ppeal is simply

unjust [ and to] allow St ewa rt to sue HOAfor mistakenly

excluding ce rtain entities from the a naly sis, without allowing Stewar t cre dit for mistakenly

including othe r entities re sults in a windfall to St ewa rt.” Appe llee’s B r. 21. HOA f urther states that this argument is especia lly compelling“whe re both mistakes oc curr ed conce rningthe same de finition, in t he same para g raph, in the same agree ment [and beca use] Stewart invoked e quitable consider ations and equity seeks c omplete justice.” I d. (empha sis remove d). To the e x tent that HOA a rgues that Stewar

t should not receive a windfa ll profit, HOA claims in essenc e that no bre ach of contra ct exist s. We agree . Unlike the def endants in Wallis v. B & A Const. Co., 614 S .E.2d 193, 195–96 (Ga . Ct. App. 2005), who had two unique pa y ment obligations, the first for stock purc hases a nd rede mptions and the second f or re al prope rty , id., HOA ha d a sing le obligation to make pay ments to St ewa

rt based on Gross Sales. A sing le contra ctual oblig ation cannot be artificia lly bifurcated by

the cour t so as to gr ant the plaintiff a windfall prof

it. To conce ive of the c ontrac t as two pay ments, one of whic h was a voluntary pay ment that is nonetheless re cover able unde r the re coupment doctr ine, would be to misapply the statutory text . “Rec oupment is a rig ht of the def endant to havea deduc tion from the amount of the plaintiff’s damag es for the re ason that the plaintiff ha s not complied with the crossobligations or independent c ovenants a rising unde r the c ontrac t upon which suit is brought.” Ga. Code Ann. § 13-7- 2. Her e, neither party can be said to have “ not complied with the crossobligations or independent c ovenants,” beca use none e x ists where the contra ct conc eives of a single obligation. Here , HOA pa id Stewart in full on the sing le obliga tion in dis pute. 7The po rti on of t he di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t awa rd in g S te wartco st s i s

va cat edan d re ve rs ed . The d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t i s o th erwi se affi rm ed
. AFFIRMED in pa rt a nd REVERSED in pa rt.

8