DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, P.A., ZUCKERMAN & VENDITTI, P.A., AND DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALEX HOFRICHTER, P.A., F/K/A HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A., AND ALEX HOFRICHTER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES; ALEX HOFRICHTER, P.A., F/K/A HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A., AND ALEX HOFRICHTER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS, V. DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, P.A., ZUCKERMAN & VENDITTI, P.A., AND DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, 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 successor judge erred in not piercing the corporate veil of Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., when determining attorney's fees liability, contrary to a prior appellate decision.
Two appeals arose from orders regarding attorney's fees in a partnership accounting suit. One appeal concerned an award of fees, while the second addr…
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 Partnership Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Appeal No. 92-1519, Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman individually appeal an order determining that Alex Hofrichter, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter individually were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in a suit for a partnership accounting. As we view the record, the trial court made the award pursuant to, and correctly applied the standards in, A.J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey, 132 Fla. 602, 182 So. 216 (1938) and Wade v. Glower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927). We affirm.
In Appeal No. 92-2368, Alex Hofrichter, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter individually (collectively, “Hofrichter”) appeal a related order which determined that Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., would be solely liable for the above-mentioned attorney’s fee award. The order denied assessment of attorney’s fees against Donald S. Zuckerman, individually, and Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A. Hofrichter appeals the denial of an attorney’s fee award against Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, individually. The October 1, 1992 order under review was entered by a successor judge, after a final judgment of accounting had been entered. The successor judge concluded that although the final judgment of accounting had been entered jointly and severally against Donald S. Zuckerman, Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., and Zuckerman and Ven-ditti, P.A., the predecessor judge had not pierced the corporate veil of Donald S. Zuck-erman, P.A. Recently, the final judgment of accounting was reviewed in this court. Another panel of this court concluded, in part, “Donald Zuckerman was properly held individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A.” Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the October 1, 1992 order is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
Appeal No. 92-1519 affirmed; Appeal No. 92-2368 reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…r is one vested largely in the discretion of the [trial court], A.J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey, 132 Fla. 602, 182 So. 216, 219 (1938)(eiting Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927)). See also Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 632 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (in a suit for an accounting of a law partnership, party’s award of attorney’s fees affirmed where trial court properly applied Wade and Richey standard); Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So. 2d 744, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (trial court…
-
Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., 710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…oceedings consistent herewith. . See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 672 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 632 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), aff'd, 646 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1994); Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v.Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Donald…
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…accounting of a partnership. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., seeks to amend the same final judgment for attorney’s fees to include previously unnamed parties pursuant to this court’s subsequent decision in Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 632 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Upon the following analysis, we reverse the trial court’s decision as to both issues. Initially, we address the Zuckerman firm’s claim. After its formation, the law firm of Hofrichter & Zuckerman, splintered in only fifteen mont…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neill G. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1927)
- A. J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey, 132 Fla. 602 (Fla. 1938)
- Sheriff OF Orange Cnty. v. Boultbee, 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)