BERNARD DAVIS AND LINDA DAVIS, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
GARY KAMINSKY AND KAMINSKY & TRIANDOLO, P.A., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS, AND BEAUCLERC VILLAGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE SINCLAIR FUND, INC., AND COLLEGE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD., 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 Davis appellants challenged a trial court judgment in a securities fraud case involving real estate tax shelter investments. The Fourth District affirmed the finding of a violation of Florida's securities statute (§ 517.301) for half of the College Square investment and the use of the verdict date for calculating prejudgment interest, but reversed the trial court's determination that appellees were not the prevailing party on Chapter 517 claims in a separate suit, requiring an award of attorney's fees on remand.
The court affirmed the finding of a section 517.301 violation for the last half of the College Square investment and the use of the verdict date for prejudgment interest calculation. The court reversed the trial court's determination that appellees were not the prevailing party on Chapter 517 claims in the Schreiber/Beauclerc Village suit, holding that appellees were the prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees unless the trial court finds such an award would be unjust.
[1] A trial court may find a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), based on evidence that oversheltering began after a party's income had dropped.
[2] Prejudgment interest may properly begin running from the date of the verdict.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We affirm the trial court's finding of a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), for the last half of the College Square investment. Based on the evidence, the trial court could have concluded that the oversheltering began in 1986, after the Davis' income had dropped.”
Establishes the court's affirmance of the securities statute violation and the factual basis for oversheltering timing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBernard and Linda Davis invested in real estate tax shelter investments, including College Square and a Schreiber/Beauclerc Village investment. The tr…
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 Claim For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s finding of a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), for the last half of the College Square investment. Based on the evidence, the trial court could have concluded that the oversheltering began in 1986, after the Davis’ income had dropped. We also affirm the trial court’s use of the date of the verdict to begin the running of prejudgment interest. See, e.g., H & S Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 667 So. 2d 393, 398-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The jury’s determination of damages on the negligence counts matched the loss calculated by the Davis’ expert. The expert’s calculations took into account years of investing, tax write-offs the Davis’ utilized as a result of the investments, as well as distributions and earnings. The expert did not attempt the complex determination which would have gone into a prejudgment interest computation.
On the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s determination that appellees were “not the prevailing party” on the Chapter 517 claims in the “Schreiber/Beauclere Village” suit. Appellees were the prevailing party in that suit within the meaning of section 517.211(6), Florida Statutes (1985). On remand, the trial court shall award attorney’s fees for the Chapter 517 portions of that lawsuit, unless the court finds that “the award of such fees would be unjust.” § 517.211(6), Fla. Stat. (1985). The trial court did not reach this latter issue because of its finding that appellees were not the prevailing party. Any award of fees should be offset against the award to which appellants are entitled as a result of being the prevailing party on the Chapter 517 issues in the “College Square” suit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- H & S Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 667 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)