OROVITZ V. BORACK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM A.D., 2005 ROBERT J. OROVITZ, and ROBERT J. ** OROVITZ P.A. d/b/a HAYT, HAYT, and LANDAU P.A., ** Appellants, vs. ** ** DAVID E. BORACK, ** CASE NO. 3D04-1574 Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 01-7209 ** 01-5737 Opinion filed May 25, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Silver, Garvett & Henkel; Hersch & Talisman and Patrice A. Talisman, for appellants. Elder, Vaccarella & Lewis and Jordan M. Keusch and Vincent Vaccarella, for appellee. Before COPE and CORTIÃ AS, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. In this case involving the amounts recoverable by a departing partner under a law firm partnership agreement, the jury verdict for the plaintiff-appellee of $128,402.541 clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that it did not give credit to appellant Orovitz for a note payable to him, as just as clearly provided by the agreement2 and established without contradiction at trial. 1 Accordingly, as we are authorized by the cases, see The verdict stated: 1. What is the sale price of Mr. Borack s shares of Robert J. Orovitz, P.A.? $128,402.54 2. Did Mr. Ovovitz offer to pay an amount equal to or greater than the appropriate sale price of the shares to Mr. Borack? Yes_____ No__X__ 3. Are there any additional amounts over and above the sales price due to Mr. Borack under the shareholder agreement? Yes_____ No__X__ 4. If yes, please state amount. $ __0__ So say we all this 10th day of March, 2004. 2 The Shareholder Agreement provided that 6. Either party may terminate this agreement with six months notice. In the event, this agreement is terminated, [Borack] agrees to sell his stock to [Orovitz] for thirty five percent (35%) of the cash and receivable, less payables, as of the date of notice. The First Addendum to Shareholder Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that 3. [Borack] acknowledges that the books and records reflect that the firm owes [Orovitz] [$282,000.00]. The parties and the firm agree that this loan will be repaid as a firm debt . . . . 2 Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971); Brod v. Adler, 570 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 577 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1991); Balsera v. A.B.D.M. & P. Corp., 511 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1987); Burgess v. Mid-Florida Serv., 609 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1986); U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utils., Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we therefore order that the verdict and judgment be reduced by Borack s thirty-five percent share of the established amount of judgment the shall partnership debt, be for entered $282,000.00. the plaintiff-appellee reduced amount of $29,702.54. Reversed and remanded with directions. 3 Upon remand, in the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
