Unidinial Mercantile Corp. v. Manufacturers' Hanover Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Unidinial Mercantile Corp. v. Manufacturers' Hanover Trust Co.

593 So. 2d 323, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1992 WL 26471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1992

DocketNo. 91-801

StatusPublished

This text of 593 So. 2d 323 (Unidinial Mercantile Corp. v. Manufacturers' Hanover Trust Co.) 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

Unidinial Mercantile Corp. v. Manufacturers' Hanover Trust Co., 593 So. 2d 323, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1992 WL 26471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Unidinial sued Manufacturers’ Hanover Trust for mismanaging its discretionary investment portfolio. Manufacturers’ Hanover was granted a summary judgment on its affirmative defense that Unidinial had ratified ■ actions of Manufacturers’ which violated the investment criteria established by the parties. •

We agree with Unidinial that, on the ratification defense, Manufacturers' failed to show the nonexistence of issues of material fact. John Sawyer’s Book Co. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami, 542 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact whether Unidinial’s failure to timely disapprove of Manufacturers’ unauthorized transactions was caused by misrepresentations or material omissions of the defendant. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Cheng, 901 F.2d 1124 (D.C.Cir.1990).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Unidinial sued Manufacturers’ Hanover Trust for mismanaging its discretionary investment portfolio. Manufacturers’ Hanover was granted a summary judgment on its affirmative defense that Unidinial had ratified ■ actions of Manufacturers’ which violated the investment criteria established by the parties. •

We agree with Unidinial that, on the ratification defense, Manufacturers' failed to show the nonexistence of issues of material fact. John Sawyer’s Book Co. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami, 542 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact whether Unidinial’s failure to timely disapprove of Manufacturers’ unauthorized transactions was caused by misrepresentations or material omissions of the defendant. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Cheng, 901 F.2d 1124 (D.C.Cir.1990).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 So. 2d 323, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1360, 1992 WL 26471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unidinial-mercantile-corp-v-manufacturers-hanover-trust-co-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack