ALLEN GEE, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
SEIDMAN & SEIDMAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed a certified question regarding whether a liquidator of a bankrupt company could recover losses from negligent auditors on behalf of customers and creditors. The Court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's certification did not reflect the actual issue decided below, as the liquidator had brought the action only on behalf of the company itself, not its creditors.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's certified question did not reflect the issue actually decided by the court below, as the liquidator had brought suit only on behalf of the company, not on behalf of creditors or customers.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to review a question certified by a district court of appeal if the district court's decision did not actually pass upon that certified questio…
[2] A liquidator bringing suit on behalf of a bankrupt company may only pursue claims belonging to the company itself, not the claims of its creditors, unless specifically au…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Whether the liquidator of a bankrupt company should be permitted to recover for losses suffered by the company's customers and creditors, against an auditor which negligently failed to discover the fraud of the company's manager, where the manager's fraudulent act was intended to and did benefit the company.”
The certified question that the district court submitted but which the Supreme Court found did not reflect the actual issue decided below.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA liquidator of a bankrupt company brought an action against auditors (Seidman & Seidman) for negligently failing to discover fraud by the company's m…
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review Seidman & Seidman v. Gee, 625 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be one of great public importance:
Whether the liquidator of a bankrupt company should be permitted to recover for losses suffered by the company’s customers and creditors, against an auditor which negligently failed to discover the fraud of the company’s manager, where the manager’s fraudulent act was intended to and did benefit the company.
Seidman & Seidman v. Gee, Nos. 91-345, 91-1479 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 28, 1993) (order certifying question).
We find that review was improvidently granted in this ease as the question certified by the district court does not reflect the issue actually ruled upon by the court. The liquidator brought the instant action against the auditors only on behalf of the company. As the district court noted in its opinion denying rehearing, “at trial, the liquidator stated ‘the Liquidator brings only the claims of [the company] itself ... and is not seeking to bring the creditors!’] claims himself.’” 625 So. 2d at 4. In fact, seventeen of the company’s creditors initially joined the liquidator as plaintiffs in the case, but fifteen of them took voluntary dismissals during the discovery proceedings and the remaining two were voluntarily dismissed during the trial. We also note that the liquidator did not bring the action on behalf of any governmental entity in this case.
Under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to review “any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public importance.” (Emphasis added). Because the district court specifically stated that it did not address the issue contained in the question certified to this Court, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the question. See Revitz v. Baya, 355 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1977).
Accordingly, we dismiss this cause for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nelson, 26 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 2010)…formation. Therefore, we do not address this issue because the district court did not pass upon the issue and it is thus outside the scope of the certified ques-lion. See art. V, § 3(b)(4); Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v); Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384, 384 (Fla.1995); Revitz v. Baya, 355 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1977). . In Stewart, the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question of great public importance: "If the state files a felony charge against the defendant and the defen…
-
Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999)…asserted require reversal.” Id. at 563. In so holding, the Second District necessarily ruled upon the question it certified, which was a dispositive issue in We-iand’s case.1 These circumstances distinguish this case from Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla.1995), which held that jurisdiction had been improvidently granted because “the question certified by the district court d[id] not reflect the issue actually ruled upon by the court.” This case can also be distinguished from Revitz v. Baya…1 / 2
-
Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…at case for review due to a lack of jurisdiction on the basis that this court did not pass upon the question prior to certifying the question. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 777 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla.2001); see also Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla.1995) (dismissing the case because the district court did not address the issue contained in the certified question); accord Revitz v. Baya, 355 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1977); Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla.1996) (explaining that…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seidman & Seidman & Binder Dijke Otte & Co. v. GEE, 625 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Revitz v. Baya, 355 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1977)