Procedural Background:
The case of Robert Holloway (the appellee) and Faw, Casson & Co. (the appellant) was first heard in the Circuit Court where the noncompetition clause was reviewed and modified and the case was later heard in the Court of Appeals of Maryland were monetary damages was sorted out.
Facts:
Robert Holloway used to work at Faw, Cason & Co. at their Salisbury address until he decided to withdrawal from the partnership to pursue another accounting firm (Twilley & Rommel). Which was within 5 miles of his former employment. Holloway also took 171 of his clients with him to his new firm. He then later left and formed a new firm but also in Salisbury. These are aspects that breeched the partnership agreement he previously signed …show more content…
They interpreted the agreement by 100% of priors years fee for any clients as talking about the 12 months before Holloway withdrew, working in anyplace within a 40 mile radius as any business that were built before he withdrew none after, and that even though the agreement had a covenant against competition it limited how much damages could able and that meant the injunctive relief couldn’t be sought.
The court also looked at the fact if it the agreement was lawful on covenant not to compete based on relationships with clients, they found it unreasonable in the fact that clients could have been only Faw, Casson’s after Holloway left but then couldn’t be Holloways and they then also turned that 5-year period into 3 because they thought it was more reasonable.
To settle the damages of clients Holloway claimed to have taken with him Faw, Casson & Co. came up with a listen of clients that Holloway agreed with having worked with now and the money for that was agreed upon.
Holdings:
The circuit court ruled by summary judgment saying that the noncompetition clause wasn’t reasonable as stated (5-years) and then changed it (3-year) and enforced it once modified. At the Court of Appeals the remaining claims based on monetary damages the court granted in favor of Faw, Casson for $75,655.90 plus prejudgment interest of
The case of Robert Holloway (the appellee) and Faw, Casson & Co. (the appellant) was first heard in the Circuit Court where the noncompetition clause was reviewed and modified and the case was later heard in the Court of Appeals of Maryland were monetary damages was sorted out.
Facts:
Robert Holloway used to work at Faw, Cason & Co. at their Salisbury address until he decided to withdrawal from the partnership to pursue another accounting firm (Twilley & Rommel). Which was within 5 miles of his former employment. Holloway also took 171 of his clients with him to his new firm. He then later left and formed a new firm but also in Salisbury. These are aspects that breeched the partnership agreement he previously signed …show more content…
They interpreted the agreement by 100% of priors years fee for any clients as talking about the 12 months before Holloway withdrew, working in anyplace within a 40 mile radius as any business that were built before he withdrew none after, and that even though the agreement had a covenant against competition it limited how much damages could able and that meant the injunctive relief couldn’t be sought.
The court also looked at the fact if it the agreement was lawful on covenant not to compete based on relationships with clients, they found it unreasonable in the fact that clients could have been only Faw, Casson’s after Holloway left but then couldn’t be Holloways and they then also turned that 5-year period into 3 because they thought it was more reasonable.
To settle the damages of clients Holloway claimed to have taken with him Faw, Casson & Co. came up with a listen of clients that Holloway agreed with having worked with now and the money for that was agreed upon.
Holdings:
The circuit court ruled by summary judgment saying that the noncompetition clause wasn’t reasonable as stated (5-years) and then changed it (3-year) and enforced it once modified. At the Court of Appeals the remaining claims based on monetary damages the court granted in favor of Faw, Casson for $75,655.90 plus prejudgment interest of