PALM COURT, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
VAUGHN DURHAM, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 held that a non-final order requiring the reissue of stock certificates was improperly issued in a discovery proceeding in aid of execution.
The trial court ordered a corporation, through its stockholders, to reissue stock certificates and deliver them to counsel for the unit owners. The pr…
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 Discovery In Aid Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
We have for review a non-final order requiring appellant corporation through its stockholders, Lanny Horwitz and Carl A. Sax, “to reissue stock certificates reflecting the individual ownership of shares in PALM COURT, INC. by Carl A. Sax and Lanny Horwitz and deliver said certificates to counsel for the Unit Owners, [appel-lees]....”
There are several problems with this order. For one, it has not been established that Horwitz and Sax are presently the owners of the stock. More importantly, however, the proceeding below is one for discovery in aid of execution under rule 1.560, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. While the trial court, in appropriate proceedings, has the power to order the corporation to reissue stock certificates, the order is simply not an appropriate function of discovery procedures.
We note in passing that in their affidavit, appellants do not claim that Sax and Hor-witz do not own stock in Palm Court, Inc., nor have they claimed that such stock does not exist. They do not even claim to be unaware of the whereabouts of the stock certificates. Thus, their response to an earlier Order on Request For Production was woefully inadequate and sanctions may be in order; further compelled discovery most certainly is. Nonetheless, in the present posture of the case we are required to reverse the non-final order and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSE and REMAND.
DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seabrooks v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 745 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…e for trial testimony “shall be taxed as costs”). Additionally, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award costs for preparation time in connection with the expert witnesses identified in paragraph 4(zzz). Payne v. Spier, 562 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA [*1040] 1990)(citing Bystrom v. Florida Rock Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)). We must, therefore, remand to the trial court with directions to tax costs for these experts’ preparation time and trial testimony. As…
-
Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Fernando R. Diaz, M.D., 224 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…estimony on the specific economic losses he incurred as a result of his injuries. The appellees properly concede Santa Lucia is entitled to recover these fees to the extent he can establish the fees were reasonable and necessary. See Payne v. Spier, 562 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable expert fees for a rehabilitation expert and economist). Santa Lucia also argues the trial court erred by excluding expert witness fees for three physicians who…