ROBERT R. FRANK AND CANAVERAL INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JACK J. FREITAG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OF CANAVERAL INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1987-11-10
No. 87-746
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
515 So. 2d 335 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a monetary loss must be shown to recover for a breach of fiduciary duty regarding corporate assets.


Facts & Procedural History

A minority stockholder sued the majority stockholder and director for breach of fiduciary duties, including misappropriation of corporate assets. The …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Jack Freitag, a ten percent stockholder in Canaveral Industrial Park, Inc., brought this action for an accounting on his own behalf and on behalf of other stockholders, against the appellant, Robert Frank, the majority stockholder and director of the corporation. The complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by Frank, including misappropriation of corporate assets to his own use and benefit. The matter was referred to a special master for findings. Based on the master’s findings the trial court entered a Final Judgment awarding Freitag $1,136 as his eight years’ share of corporate earnings, and $30,000 as a ten percent share of proceeds from an unsatisfied mortgage on the corporation’s real property. Frank, as the managing director, had encumbered corporate property with a $300,000 mortgage, the proceeds of which were deposited into his personal account.

No error is shown in the award of a share of profits from corporate earnings. However, the mere fact that a mortgage is placed on corporate property, and the proceeds are held in an account other than the corporation’s account, does not show that Freitag, or any other stockholder, has yet suffered a monetary loss owing to a breach of a fiduciary duty.

Frank’s remaining points are without merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.1

. The parties represent that the mortgage was satisfied and the property sold while this appeal was pending. Apparently there has been no distribution of proceeds from the sale of the real property which is the sole corporate asset.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mendoza v. Maricela Maury, 550 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Kaney v. Kaney, 532 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Frank v. Freitag, 515 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Somoza v. Solis, 511 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Kaminester, 400 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw