ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH, INC., AND JOHN STETSON, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
MARY STETSON, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of a res judicata defense in a shareholder accounting claim and upheld the trial court's findings regarding architectural service fees and denial of attorney's fees.
A shareholder's claim for an accounting against a corporate fiduciary officer is not barred by res judicata merely because the shareholder's ownership interest was determined in prior dissolution proceedings, where the accounting claim was not actually litigated in those proceedings.
[1] A shareholder's accounting claim against a corporate fiduciary is not barred by res judicata based on prior dissolution proceedings unless the accounting claim was actual…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Stetson was a chief fiduciary officer of Architectural Research, Inc. Mary Stetson, determined to own a one-half interest in the corporation thro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error by the trial court in finding against the appellant, John Stetson, on his affirmative defense of res judicata on the appellee’s claim for an accounting from the appellant as the chief fiduciary officer of Architectural Research, Inc., a corporation in which the appellee, in prior dissolution proceedings, had been determined to have a one-half ownership interest. We do not believe the appellee was required to litigate her accounting claim against the appellant Stetson in the dissolution proceedings, and we also do not find that the appellant Stetson sufficiently established in the record that such a claim was actually litigated in the dissolution proceedings so as to mandate the trial court’s acceptance of the res judicata defense. Cf. Holley v. Hayes, 412 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We also find no error by the trial court in receiving testimony from the witness, Stephen Barry, or in determining, contrary to the appellee’s contentions on cross-appeal, that the appellant Stetson had properly claimed a fee for architectural services from the corporation, and in determining that appellee was not entitled to attorney’s fees.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krug v. Meros, 468 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…the issue of fraud was actually litigated and determined with sufficient certainty in the prior action so as to mandate the trial court’s acceptance and application of the estoppel by judgment defense. Prall; Architectural Research, Inc. v. Stetson, 444 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984); Freehling v. MGIC Financial Corp., 437 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Sun State Roofing Co.; Allstate Insurance Co. v. A.D.H., Inc., 397 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Seabo…
Authorities Cited
- Holley v. Hayes, 412 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)