Mark ex rel. Sunland Ventures, Inc. v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mark ex rel. Sunland Ventures, Inc. v. Davis

632 So. 2d 281, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1319, 1994 WL 51883

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1994

DocketNo. 93-0881

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 281 (Mark ex rel. Sunland Ventures, Inc. v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mark ex rel. Sunland Ventures, Inc. v. Davis, 632 So. 2d 281, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1319, 1994 WL 51883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying him the right to seek relief against the appellees through the filing of a supplemental complaint. Appellant, a minority shareholder, was originally granted relief on his claim that corporate assets had been improperly transferred. The trial court retained jurisdiction to facilitate recovery of the assets. In a proposed supplemental complaint the appellant has alleged a further series of unlawful transfers to appellees. We see no reason why appellant should not be entitled to attempt to show the transfers were illegal and in violation of his rights and the prior judgment. See Connelly v. Florida Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 120 So.2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); see also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(h); Camerano v. Camerano, 340 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Cone v. Cone, 62 So.2d 907 (Fla.1953); Republic of Haiti v. Crown Charters, Inc., 667 F.Supp. 839 (S.D.Fla.1987). Of course, appellant has the burden of alleging and proving the illegality of the alleged transfers.

[282]*282Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DELL, C.J., and ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying him the right to seek relief against the appellees through the filing of a supplemental complaint. Appellant, a minority shareholder, was originally granted relief on his claim that corporate assets had been improperly transferred. The trial court retained jurisdiction to facilitate recovery of the assets. In a proposed supplemental complaint the appellant has alleged a further series of unlawful transfers to appellees. We see no reason why appellant should not be entitled to attempt to show the transfers were illegal and in violation of his rights and the prior judgment. See Connelly v. Florida Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 120 So.2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); see also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(h); Camerano v. Camerano, 340 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Cone v. Cone, 62 So.2d 907 (Fla.1953); Republic of Haiti v. Crown Charters, Inc., 667 F.Supp. 839 (S.D.Fla.1987). Of course, appellant has the burden of alleging and proving the illegality of the alleged transfers.

[282]*282Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DELL, C.J., and ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 281, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1319, 1994 WL 51883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-ex-rel-sunland-ventures-inc-v-davis-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack