E. ROBERT ENGLISH, APPELLANT,
v.
TANFIELD C. MILLER, AS SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVELY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF BEST READ GUIDES, INC. AND HONEY MILLER, AS SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVELY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF BEST READ GUIDES FRANCHISE CORP. AND BEST READ GUIDES, INC., WALTER BROOKS, AND PATRICIA BROOKS, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1991-09-25
No. 90-1990
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur., WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.
585 So. 2d 511 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent
WARNER, Judge,

WARNER, Judge,

dissenting.

Appellant claims venue is improper in Broward County. Based upon the portions of the record we have before us, I agree.

Appellant was sued as a director of a corporation. He is a resident of Lake County. He says the corporation’s principal office is in Orange County. Appellee filed an affidavit saying that the corporation maintained “an office” (not the principal office) in Broward County. The rest of appellee’s affidavit discussed how a different replevin action to obtain corporate documents held by appellee in Broward was filed in Broward County and that a contract was entered into in Broward County. If that sounds confusing, it confuses me too, especially when all of it relates to a completely different lawsuit.

The allegations against appellant in this lawsuit are “civil theft (corporate opportunity)”, which makes conclusory allegations that appellant usurped a corporate opportunity by self dealing and thus used property belonging to the corporation to deprive the corporation of its property, and of RICO violations based upon the same allegations. There are also counts for self dealing and claims for injunctive relief. However, nowhere does it allege a cause of action based on the replevin litigation, even though the affidavit says that the replevin action “serves as a basis of all litigation”.

There are no allegations as to where the causes of action actually alleged accrued, and since they deal with the taking of corporate property, they have a “place” of accrual. Appellees have not favored us with a brief or appendix. Thus, I conclude that they do not contest the facts of this appeal.

I would reverse because appellee has failed to bring the cause of action either in the county of residence of any defendant, where the cause of action accrued or where the property in this litigation is located. Section 47.011, Fla.Stat.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Colondro Peters v. State, 626 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
    …pt charge imposed at the resentencing hearing. In the previous appeal, we reversed the sentence because the trial court had failed to make factual findings on the record, as required by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1989). Peters v. State, 585 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). At the resentencing hearing, the trial court again sentenced him as an adult without making all of the required factual findings. In response to the pronouncement of the sentence, defendant exclaimed: “Don’t need this shit.” The…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw