JUAN VICENTE PEREZ SANDOVAL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BANCO DE COMERCIO, S.A., 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 the Venezuelan banking laws applied were not penal in nature, and thus Venezuelan law was properly applied to the substantive issues of liability and attorney's fees.
Appellants appealed a final judgment for fraud and misappropriation of funds, and an award of attorney's fees and costs, entered in favor of Venezuela…
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 Misappropriation Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In consolidated matters, Juan Vicente Perez Sandoval and Sandy Bay Investments Co. appeal from a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs/appellees, three interrelated Venezuelan financial institutions, in an action for fraud and misappropriation of funds and from a final judgment taxing attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm.1
The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether Venezuelan law applied by the trial judge,2 regulating Venezuelan financial institutions and its officers, was penal in nature. We conclude that the trial court properly held that the applicable Venezuelan banking laws were not penal and, accordingly affirm the judgment finding Sandoval and Sandy Bay liable. See Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892).
We likewise affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs. The issue of attorney’s fees as provided under Venezuelan law is substantive, and Venezuelan law was properly applied. See Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982) (an award of attorney’s fees is a matter of substantive law properly under the aegis of the legislature). Appellees prayed for attorney’s fees and costs in a timely post-judgment motion. They were not required to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees in their complaint. Downs v. Stockman, 555 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Appellants’ remaining points on appeal are without merit.
Affirmed.
. Because Banco’s claims against appellants were dropped prior to trial, appellants are entitled to a correction of the final judgment.
. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that "as to rules of law, ... Venezuelan law controls the substance of the issues of liability and obligations with respect to the ... Sandy Bay transaction.” The parties further stipulated that "the trial court should decide whether Venezuelan law provides that the prevailing party in this action is entitled to recover its fees and costs."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 585 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1991)…McDONALD, Justice. Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we review Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, 566 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), because of conflict with Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991). In Perez Sandoval the district court affirmed a judgment for attorney’s fees and held that it is not necessary to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees in a co…
Authorities Cited
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1892)
- Downs v. Stockman, 555 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)