Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.
190 So.2d 777, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3327 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Florida Supreme Court declined to judicially adopt the doctrine of promissory estoppel as an exception to the Statute of Frauds in a law action, affirming that it is the legislature's prerogative to create such exceptions to statutory law.
Facts:
- In September 1961, W.L. Tanenbaum, an osteopathic physician specializing in radiography, moved from Allentown, Pennsylvania, to North Miami Beach to become the osteopathic radiologist at Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.
- Tanenbaum and Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital entered into an oral contract for his services for a period of five years, terminable only after that five-year period and upon 90 days' written notice.
- Tanenbaum repeatedly importuned Dr. Feldman, the chairman of the X-Ray Committee and an authorized spokesman for the hospital, to execute a written agreement for the five-year term, but a written contract was never accomplished.
- After a conference where Tanenbaum and Dr. Feldman reached a "meeting of the minds" on the proposed five-year written contract, Dr. Feldman called Tanenbaum and told him everything was agreed and to come to Miami.
- In reliance on the promise of a five-year written contract, Tanenbaum gave the required notice to his previous hospital, sold his home in Pennsylvania at a loss, and purchased a home in Miami.
- In April 1962, Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital notified Tanenbaum that his services would be discontinued the first of the following July, without any question of his competency.
- After his termination, Tanenbaum sold his Miami home at a loss and later secured employment at a hospital in Detroit, Michigan, where he earned an average of $800 less per month than under his contract with Biscayne.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1962, W.L. Tanenbaum filed a complaint in Circuit Court (trial court) against Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., for damages resulting from his termination.
- Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital's principal defense was the Statute of Frauds.
- At the end of Tanenbaum's case, Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital moved for a directed verdict, which the Circuit Court denied.
- At the close of all testimony and evidence, Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital repeated its motion for a directed verdict, and the Circuit Court reserved ruling on it.
- A jury returned a verdict for Tanenbaum in the amount of $40,000.
- Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital subsequently presented a motion for a judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict.
- The Circuit Court granted Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital's motion, finding the Statute of Frauds properly pleaded, the contract within the statute, and rejecting Tanenbaum's argument of promissory estoppel, entering judgment for the defendant.
- Tanenbaum appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the District Court of Appeal, Third District (intermediate appellate court), arguing that his claim was not barred by the Statute of Frauds due to promissory estoppel.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment, stating that the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" as related to the Statute of Frauds did not appear in Florida decisions and expressed caution about "ingrafting" such a provision onto state law.
- The case was then sent to the Supreme Court of Florida on a certificate under Sec. 4(2), Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., as a matter of first impression.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Supreme Court of Florida adopt the doctrine of promissory estoppel to prevent the application of the Statute of Frauds in a law action where an oral agreement for services not to be performed within one year induces substantial detrimental reliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, Justice
No, the Supreme Court of Florida will not adopt the doctrine of promissory estoppel to prevent the application of the Statute of Frauds. The Court declined to adopt by judicial action a doctrine that would act as a "counteraction" to the legislatively created Statute of Frauds. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds, as established in Yates v. Ball, is to prevent actions based on loose verbal statements by requiring written agreements for contracts not to be performed within one year, and it should be strictly construed to prevent the fraud it was designed to correct. The Court emphasized that courts should be reluctant to take cases from its protection. It noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel, though recognized in the Restatement of Contracts § 90, had not been embraced in any prior Florida law action. The Court believed that introducing such a novel concept, which could have the effect of nullifying the legislative will, was a matter for the legislature, especially since the Restatement provision had been in existence for 33 years without legislative adoption. The Court concluded that Tanenbaum had but to follow the provisions of the Statute of Frauds to secure his rights.
Dissenting - Ervin, Justice (adopting Justice T. Frank Hobson (Ret.)'s opinion)
Yes, the Supreme Court of Florida should adopt the doctrine of promissory estoppel in this case to prevent the Statute of Frauds from being used as an instrument of fraud. The dissenting opinion highlighted that the jury's $40,000 verdict, aligning with Tanenbaum's claimed losses, indicated they believed Tanenbaum's testimony regarding the promise of a five-year written contract and his reliance thereon. Justice Hobson argued that promissory estoppel is not a novel concept but is an "identical twin" to the long-recognized exception to the Statute of Frauds for oral contracts for real property where part performance (like possession and improvements) estops the seller from pleading the statute (citing Tate v. Jones, 1877). Both doctrines share the ultimate purpose of preventing injustice and fraud. The dissent also contended that adopting legal rules and doctrines is primarily a judicial prerogative, not exclusively a legislative one, and that the Court should not use "legislative prerogative" as an excuse to reject a doctrine necessary to avoid injustice. If injustice will obtain unless the promise is enforced, then the Statute of Frauds, if permitted as a defense, would indeed become an instrument of fraud.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the Florida Supreme Court's stance on promissory estoppel in the mid-1960s, particularly regarding its interaction with the Statute of Frauds. By explicitly rejecting the adoption of promissory estoppel as an exception, the Court underscored a conservative approach to judicial activism, preferring legislative action for significant changes to statutory law. This decision limited a plaintiff's ability to recover damages for reliance on oral promises falling within the Statute of Frauds, emphasizing strict adherence to the statute's writing requirement. For future cases, it signaled that absent legislative intervention, equitable doctrines would not readily override explicit statutory mandates, solidifying the Statute of Frauds' protective shield in Florida.
