Tagarelli v. McCormick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tagarelli v. McCormick

614 So. 2d 11, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1671, 1993 WL 33797

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1993

DocketNos. 91-01900, 91-03506

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 11 (Tagarelli v. McCormick) 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

Tagarelli v. McCormick, 614 So. 2d 11, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1671, 1993 WL 33797 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals Michael F. Tagarelli, (Tagarelli), the majority shareholder in Michael Tagarelli Construction, Inc., challenges a final judgment in favor of Tagarelli Construction in a derivative action brought by the minority shareholder, Charles Deering McCormick. Tagarelli raises six issues, one of which has merit. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment in part and remand.

The trial court found that Tagarelli diverted a corporate opportunity by forming [12]*12a second corporation to purchase fifty percent of Martin’s Waterfront, a mobile home park, leaving Tagarelli Construction to purchase the remaining fifty percent. Tagar-elli argues that no corporate opportunity existed, and that even if one did, McCormick acquiesced in the transaction and is therefore estopped from challenging it.

For the following reasons, we agree that McCormick is estopped from challenging the transaction. The undisputed evidence established that McCormick was notified of the shareholders meeting at which the transaction was discussed. Without giving any explanation, McCormick chose not to attend. After the shareholders meeting, McCormick received a report detailing the transaction and the company’s intent to enter into it. No objection to the transaction was made until this suit was filed, even though appellee had been advised of Tagarelli’s plans. See Head v. Lane, 495 So.2d 821, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., FRANK, J., and CURRY, CHARLES B„ Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals Michael F. Tagarelli, (Tagarelli), the majority shareholder in Michael Tagarelli Construction, Inc., challenges a final judgment in favor of Tagarelli Construction in a derivative action brought by the minority shareholder, Charles Deering McCormick. Tagarelli raises six issues, one of which has merit. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment in part and remand.

The trial court found that Tagarelli diverted a corporate opportunity by forming [12]*12a second corporation to purchase fifty percent of Martin’s Waterfront, a mobile home park, leaving Tagarelli Construction to purchase the remaining fifty percent. Tagar-elli argues that no corporate opportunity existed, and that even if one did, McCormick acquiesced in the transaction and is therefore estopped from challenging it.

For the following reasons, we agree that McCormick is estopped from challenging the transaction. The undisputed evidence established that McCormick was notified of the shareholders meeting at which the transaction was discussed. Without giving any explanation, McCormick chose not to attend. After the shareholders meeting, McCormick received a report detailing the transaction and the company’s intent to enter into it. No objection to the transaction was made until this suit was filed, even though appellee had been advised of Tagarelli’s plans. See Head v. Lane, 495 So.2d 821, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., FRANK, J., and CURRY, CHARLES B„ Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 11, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1671, 1993 WL 33797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tagarelli-v-mccormick-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack