N.T. DOLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SPRINGLITE BOTTLED WATER CORP., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1995-05-24
No. 94-301
Per Curiam
656 So. 2d 211 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's valuation of shares under the fair value statute but reversed in part regarding fringe benefits, requiring an award of health insurance and car allowance benefits that the trial court improperly denied.


Holding

The trial court's share valuation was proper and supported by competent evidence, but the court abused its discretion by denying health insurance and car allowance benefits under the employment contract.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court may exclude an expert witness for repeated failure to comply with discovery orders requiring production of materials supporting the expert's opinions.

[2] Double compensation is improper where an award of vacation pay in addition to annual salary compensation would compensate the employee twice for the same period of employ…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Dolan sought fair value for his shares in Springlite Bottled Water Corp. and claimed entitlement to fringe benefits including vacation pay, health ins…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s determination of the fair value of Dolan’s shares in Springlite. The trial court’s valuation was supported by competent, substantial evidence and properly conformed to the requirements for determining fair value. § 607.1301(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). On this same issue of valuation, we find that it was within the trial court’s discretion to exclude Dolan’s expert witness where the expert repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s discovery orders requiring him to provide materials and information supporting his opinions. § 90.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Newell v. Best Sec. Sys., Inc., 560 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Additionally, with regard to the issue of fringe benefits, we affirm the trial court’s denial of an award for vacation pay pursuant to the employment contract where such an award, in addition to the award for his annual salary, would have amounted to double compensation for the time remaining in his employment contract. However, we reverse a portion of the final judgment finding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award health insurance and car allowance benefits where there was competent, substantial evidence presented to support such an award pursuant to the employment contract. Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1987).

Lastly, we affirm all other aspects of the final judgment.

We affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lally Orange Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Simi Sandhu, 207 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
    …d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). However, the court’s conclusion as to fair value must be “supported by competent, substantial evidence and properly conformed to the requirements for determining fair value.” Dolan v. Springlite Bottled Water Corp., 656 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing § 607.1301, Fla. Stat.). If the trial court is acting as the factfinder, it is “free to accept or reject the testimony of the business valuation expert[s],” Nunez, 29 So. 3d at 1192. However, absent competent, substan…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw