Ottolina v. Miller Lakes Associates

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ottolina v. Miller Lakes Associates

717 So. 2d 550, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1366, 1998 WL 65310

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1417

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 550 (Ottolina v. Miller Lakes Associates) 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

Ottolina v. Miller Lakes Associates, 717 So. 2d 550, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1366, 1998 WL 65310 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rhona Ottolina [shareholder] appeals the denial of her motion to inspect corporate records under section 607.1602, Florida Statutes (1993). We reverse the order denying the motion because the records previously provided to the shareholder are insufficient to allow her to ascertain the value of her stock and to determine whether the corporation has been properly administered. The need for the requested additional records is shown by the affidavit of the shareholder’s accountant, and, therefore, those records must be produced. See Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Gnaizda, 633 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); URT Indus. v. Scorpio Music, Inc., 567 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1311 (Fla.1991). The trial court erred in determining otherwise.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rhona Ottolina [shareholder] appeals the denial of her motion to inspect corporate records under section 607.1602, Florida Statutes (1993). We reverse the order denying the motion because the records previously provided to the shareholder are insufficient to allow her to ascertain the value of her stock and to determine whether the corporation has been properly administered. The need for the requested additional records is shown by the affidavit of the shareholder’s accountant, and, therefore, those records must be produced. See Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Gnaizda, 633 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); URT Indus. v. Scorpio Music, Inc., 567 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1311 (Fla.1991). The trial court erred in determining otherwise.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 550, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1366, 1998 WL 65310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ottolina-v-miller-lakes-associates-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack