NATE M. OLIVER AND SUNRISE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STEPHEN G. KOLODY, 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 trial court abused its discretion in refusing a continuance for a hearing on a proceeding supplementary.
Oliver appealed an order transferring his stock to his former attorney, Kolody, following a proceeding supplementary. Oliver was unrepresented and bel…
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 Stock Valuation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Nate M. Oliver (Oliver) appeals an order from a proceeding supplementary. The order appealed resulted in the transfer of all Oliver’s stock in Sunrise Investment Group, Inc. (Sunrise) to Stephen G. Kolody his former attorney. Oliver contends the trial court erred in refusing his request for a continuance of the hearing on the proceeding supplementary. We agree and reverse.
The proceeding supplementary hearing was held on January 7,1991. The notice of hearing had been mailed to Oliver on December 27, 1990. Oliver was unrepresented on both dates. Sunrise had filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy which Oliver believed stayed these proceedings. Based upon the unique circumstances of this case,1 we hold the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance.
Upon remand the trial court shall allow both parties to present additional evidence of the value of the Sunrise stock. The stock valuation date shall be January 7, 1991, the date of the prior hearing. Oliver’s other claims of error are without merit or are rendered moot by our ruling permitting the presentation of additional evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur. . If not readily apparent, the uniqueness of the circumstances includes the fact that this is a contest between a client and his former attorney.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…pat-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is only permissive if the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject is an armed threat. § 901.151(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981); Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Establishing the predicate for a valid stop did not, in and of itself, justify the pat-down search in this ease. Pat-down searches performed routinely or for safety purposes only are constitutionally impermissible. Harris v. Stat…
-
Cubby v. State, 707 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…t-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is only permitted if the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject is an armed threat. See § 901.151(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981); Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Since it is clear from the record that Rivera had no reasonable suspicion that appellant was involved in any criminal activity nor a reasonable belief that he was armed, the pat-down was invalid. Accordingly, we [*353] reverse th…
-
Sutton v. State, 698 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…a hit- and-run incident. Being a passenger in a car that is being chased is not a per se criminal action, and even if being a passenger were per se criminal, it is not indicative that the person is armed with a dangerous weapon. See Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (suspicion of burglary alone does not give rise to a reasonable belief that a person is armed with a dangerous weapon). Additionally, the presence of the metal pipe did not indicate that Sutton had a weapon on her person. With…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence