CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN CHERNOFF, C.P.A., APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed that the Statute of Frauds did not bar appellee's claim for payment for services because appellant's obligation was direct, not collateral, and the claim was not a compulsory counterclaim in a prior federal suit.
The Statute of Frauds does not bar a claim for payment for services when the defendant's obligation to pay is direct rather than collateral.
[1] An obligation to pay for services rendered to a subsidiary corporation is a direct obligation not barred by the Statute of Frauds when the parent corporation becomes obli…
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 intelligenceAppellant acquired stock in a subsidiary corporation and later became obligated to pay for services rendered by appellee to that subsidiary. Appellant…
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 Compulsory Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court which in effect found that the Statute of Frauds, section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1981), did not bar appellee’s claim. There was competent evidence on the basis of which the trial court could find that the obligation of appellant to pay for services rendered by appellee to appellant's subsidiary corporation was a direct, not a collateral, obligation. See Sanders v. Hodges, 109 Fla. 391, 147 So. 571 (1933); Clover Interior Systems, Inc. v. General Development Corp., 357 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Troup Brothers, Inc. v. State of Florida, 135 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).
The amount of the judgment was for payment for services rendered by appellee subsequent to appellant’s acquisition of stock in the subsidiary. In a prior federal suit appellant and the corporation which became its subsidiary sued appellee for securities laws violations and fraud which allegedly induced appellant’s acquisition of stock in the subsidiary corporation. We do not conclude that the requisite “logical relationship” existed between appellant’s previously filed federal suit and appellee’s present suit so as to constitute the subject of the present suit a compulsory counterclaim in the federal suit. See Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 426 F. 2d 709 (5th Cir.1970). Compare Taussig v. Insurance Company of North America, 301 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Stone v. Pembroke Lakes Trailer Park, Inc., 268 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Revere Copper & Brass Inc. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 426 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Stone v. Pembroke Lakes Trailer Park, Inc., 268 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Taussig v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 301 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Troup Bros., Inc. v. State of Fla. for the Use & Benefit of Meadows S. Constr. Co., Inc., 135 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Sanders v. Hodges, 109 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1933)
- Levy v. Walt Disney World Co., 357 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Clover Interior Sys., Inc. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 357 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)