While non-compete agreements were once a rarity, they have become somewhat common in the modern workplace.  Issues regarding the drafting, interpretation, and enforcement of such agreements are common topics for the employment lawyers at Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A.  In this regard, the firm both meets with and often represents employers seeking to draft or enforce such agreements as well as the employees that are subject to same.

Generally speaking, there are numerous common misconceptions as to the legality of non-compete agreements.  Prospective clients often believe that such agreements are either always enforceable or that they are rarely enforceable.  The reality, however, is that neither is true.  The courts look to a number of factors on a case by case basis in determining whether to enforce the terms of a particular agreement.  Accordingly, getting advice from a qualified and experienced attorney regarding such agreements is certainly prudent for both affected employers and employees.

In Florida, non-compete agreements are governed by both statute and the decisions interpreting same.  In this regard, section 542.335 of the Florida statutes provides the courts with both authority and some guidance as to the enforcement of non-compete and other related restrictive covenants.  For example, as noted in such statute, such agreements must be in writing and executed by the affected employee to be valid.  They must also, generally speaking, be reasonable in scope, time, and geographic area.  However, the mere fact that an agreement may be unreasonable in one or more of these areas will not absolutely preclude enforcement as the courts are authorized to limit the application or length of the restrictive period while still enforcing same.

Additionally, it should be noted that merely having an agreement and a breach of same does not mean that the courts will enforce such agreement.  In many cases, the key issue is whether the employer seeking enforcement can articulate one or more legitimate business interests supporting such restrictive covenants.  While section 542.335 provides several examples of such legitimate business interests, it is, of course, advisable to speak to a qualified attorney as to the specific facts of your matter.

Ultimately, a dispute involving a non-compete agreement can be a costly endeavor for the affected employee, the prior employer, and even the new employer.  In addition to money damages, such claims often involve requests for injunctive relief as well.  Moreover, Florida law allows for the recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party in litigation regarding such agreements.  Of course, prudent actions by both employers and employees can often avoid litigation, but that is not always the case.  The employment attorneys at Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A. can offer advice and assistance at any stage of a matter involving these agreements and have significant experience in drafting, enforcement, and defense of same.

– Joseph Shoemaker, Esq., is an attorney with Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., a full service law firm with offices in Orlando, Clermont, Kissimmee, Deltona, Daytona Beach, Ocala, Melbourne, Gainesville, and Leesburg, Florida.  Mr. Shoemaker works out of the Leesburg office of the firm and welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at jshoemaker@boginmunns.com

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. The engagement would also be confirmed by a written agreement.

Most people who are involved in a motor vehicle accident are often confused when they meet with a lawyer for the first time after an accident.  Often times, they expect to see the justice, drama and large awards like they see on television.  They expect to be sent to a doctor at the law firm’s bidding, they expect that the lawyer will make the at-fault party pay for all the medical bills, lost wages, car damage, give them large sums of money for pain and suffering and then life goes on as usual for the victim.  Unfortunately, this is often far from what happens in a typical motor vehicle accident case.  While it is true, in most case the at fault party does pay medical bills, lost wages, car damage, and ends up paying sums of money for pain and suffering to a victim, the truth is that sometimes the compensation to a victim is very little or even none.  The cases involving large sums of money are often limited to very tragic accidents involving death or catastrophic injuries to a victim.  Fortunately, these death or catastrophic injury cases are not the typical case, but just the same the typical motor vehicle accident case does have serious and significant impacts on a victim’s life.  Unfortunately, the drama that is often exciting and entertaining as it unfolds on television is now not so appealing because it is personal.  To a victim the whole experience of being involved in a motor vehicle accident often becomes very overwhelming because it can often cause serious physical injury, time away from work and sometimes financial devastation to someone who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The process of a typical motor vehicle accident case is often very difficult to explain to a victim because an innocent victim just cannot comprehend why the law would require them to prove the extent of their injuries and damages when they have done nothing wrong to cause this difficult misfortune upon themselves.  They are also very confused as to why the law would protect the rights of the at-fault party.  Yes, the at-fault party does have legal defenses along with the innocent victim’s possible right for recovery!  Worse yet, there are even some instances where the at-fault party may even escape financial responsibility while leaving a lifelong injury to an innocent victim.  Sadly, an automobile accident like life just isn’t always fair.  While the law does make every reasonable effort to assist those injured parties whose life has just been placed in ruin by another, it also does set forth very specific and solid guidelines with regard to victim’s compensation.   As unfair as it may seem, the fact is that the burden of proving pain and suffering does fall on the victim and they must prove what they have lost is a legal and justifiable injury/damage caused by the auto accident to be awarded compensation.  Unfortunately, most victims’ whether they receive money or not will rarely ever feel that have been justly compensated for their loss.  Victims of motor vehicle accidents may always bare the horrible consequences of permanent, crippling injury and sadly…sometimes it may even change their life forever…regardless of any amount of money received from a negligent party.

– Cynthia M. Thomas, Esq., is a personal injury attorney with Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., a full service law firm with offices in Orlando, Clermont, Kissimmee, Deltona, Daytona Beach, Ocala, Melbourne, Gainesville, and Leesburg, Florida.  She welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at cthomas@boginmunns.com

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. The engagement would also be confirmed by a written agreement.

There are three common types of ownership for property owned by more than one person.

1.  Tenancy by the entireties:

Only a husband and wife can own property as tenants by the entireties.  If real property is owned by a husband and wife, there is a presumption of a tenancy by the entireties.  In this form of ownership, there is a right of survivorship – if one spouse dies, the other gets the entire property.  If it is your intent to establish a right of survivorship with your spouse, make sure that title to the property indicates the right of survivorship or designates you and your spouse as husband and wife.

2.  Tenants in common:

If title to the property specifically describes the parties as tenants in common or, if there is no express indication of a right of survivorship between two unmarried persons, there is a presumption that the property is owned amongst the parties as tenants in common.  In this ownership form, each tenant in common may freely transfer his or her interest and leaves his or her share of the property to his or her heirs or beneficiaries.

3.  Joint tenancy with right of survivorship:

Two or more unmarried persons.  The surviving persons will own all of the property upon the death of others.  If it is your intent to establish a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, you should expressly indicate on title to the property the “right of survivorship”.

– Spencer R. Munns, Esq., is a shareholder Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., a full service law firm with offices in Orlando, Clermont, Kissimmee, Deltona, Daytona Beach, Ocala, Melbourne, Gainesville, and Leesburg, Florida.  He welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at smunns@boginmunns.com.

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement.

The first part of this article discussed the economic realities test which is applied in minimum wage, overtime, and Family & Medical Leave Act cases.  If the case at issue involves, for example, race discrimination under Title VII, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, etc., then the courts apply the common law test to determine whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor.

The elements of the common law test are: (1) the intention of the parties (i.e., did the parties intend to enter into an employee/employer relationship or did they agree to create an independent contractor relationship); (2) the skill required in the particular occupation (this element is similar to economic reality test element number four); (3) the party furnishing the equipment and the place of work (this element is similar to economic reality test element number three); (4) the method of payment, whether by time or by the job (this element is similar to economic reality test element number two); (5) the type of employment benefits provided (i.e., if the employer provides the worker with medical insurance, then this factor tends to prove employee status); (6) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated (i.e., if the worker can be terminated at-will, then that tends to prove employee status); (7) the importance of the work performed as part of the business of the employer (this element is similar to economics reality test element number six); and (8) the manner in which taxes on income is paid (i.e., if the employer deducts standard payroll taxes, then this factor tends to prove employee status).

There are subtle differences between the economic realities test and the common law test.  The critical difference is that the common law test is generally regarded as setting a slightly higher threshold to proving employee status.  However, the courts are generally in agreement that even under the common law test, both tests are designed to measure the degree of control that the purported employer exerts over the employee.  Therefore, the fact that an employer does not offer insurance benefits may have less to do with independent contractor issues and more with the fact that the employer simply does not wish to incur this cost.  Furthermore, some courts have construed an employer’s unilateral refusal to deduct payroll taxes as a condition of employment not as proof of independent contractor status but rather proof that it exercises substantial control over the worker.  Should you have any questions regarding your current arrangement, feel free to contact one of the employment attorneys at Bogin, Munns & Munns, P.A. to coordinate a consultation.

– Daniel Perez, Esq., is an attorney with Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., a full service law firm with offices in Orlando, Clermont, Kissimmee, Deltona, Daytona Beach, Ocala, Melbourne, Gainesville, and Leesburg, Florida.  Mr. Perez works out of the Melbourne office of the firm and welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at dperez@boginmunns.com

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement.

Dog bite cases in Florida are governed by Florida Statute 767.04.  In pertinent part, Statute 767.04 provides that the “owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on…the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness.”  “Owner” includes any person, firm, corporation, or organization possessing, harboring, keeping or having control or custody of a dog.

The Statute imposes absolute liability upon the dog owner when the dog-bite victim is in a public place or lawfully on or in a private place except when the dog is carelessly or mischievously provoked or when the owner displays in a prominent place on the premises a sign easily readable including the words “Bad Dog.”  The presence of this sign does not apply to a person under the age of 6.

By displaying a proper “bad dog” sign, an owner may escape liability.  However, this defense maybe attacked in several ways.  First, it may be that the sign(s) were not in a prominent place, were not easily readable, or did not include the exact words “bad dog.”   Second, the statutory language does contain a qualifier that bypasses the sign defense if damages “are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner.”  For example, if an owner tells a visitor to ignore the sign, or indicates that the dog is not dangerous, the defense of the sign may not apply.

It is important when bitten by a dog to notify the owner immediately, notify animal control officials, photograph the bite, and seek medical attention.  The counsel of qualified legal representation is advisable as soon as possible after the bite, especially in cases of severe damage.

Pam Olsen, Esq., is an experienced personal injury attorney with Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., a full service law firm with offices in Orlando, Clermont, Kissimmee, Deltona, Daytona Beach, Ocala, Melbourne, Gainesville, and Leesburg, Florida.  Ms. Olsen works out of the Ocala office of the firm and welcomes questions and comments regarding the above and can be reached at polsen@boginmunns.com

NO LEGAL ADVICE: This blog entry is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. It is intended only as general information.  You should not act upon this information without retaining professional legal counsel. Please keep in mind that merely subscribing to or reading this blog or otherwise contacting Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. in the manner that you have will not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Bogin Munns & Munns, P.A. cannot represent you until the firm knows there would not be a conflict of interest, and the firm determines that it is otherwise able to accept the engagement. The engagement would also be confirmed by a written agreement.