E & A PRODUCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NILDA OLMO, 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.
Officers are not liable for corporate acts unless they personally commit tortious acts.
E & A Produce sued Nilda Olmo, an officer of Superior Garlic, for claims including civil theft and conversion related to a joint venture. The trial co…
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 Corporate Officer Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant E & A Produce Corporation filed a civil action against appellee Nilda Olmo, her brother Silfredo Trujillo and the company they own and operate, Superior Garlic Corporation. We affirm.
Olmo is the vice-president of Superior Garlic. E & A asserted various claims against Olmo, Trujillo, and Superior Garlic. The claims against Olmo, individually, included civil theft, conversion and malicious destruction of property, in connection with the removal of a control panel from a garlic peeling machine that was the subject of a failed joint venture between the parties.
On appeal, E & A challenges the trial court’s Summary Final Judgment entered in favor of Olmo. Officers of a corporation are not liable for corporate acts simply by reason of the officer’s relation to the corporation. See Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 941, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). It is true that individual officers and agents of a corporation may be held personally liable for their tortious acts, even if such acts were committed within the scope of their employment or as corporate officers. See Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
A careful review of the record in this case, however, indicates that E & A did not present any competent evidence to demonstrate that Olmo was involved in any of the acts E & A alleges in its Second Amended Complaint. The record thus reflects no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Therefor, in the absence of any competent evidence of wrongdoing on Olmo’s part that would make her personally or individually liable, the trial court was correct to enter Final Summary Judgment in Olmo’s favor. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Superior Garlic Int'l v. E & A Produce Corp., 913 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…as to 1) civil theft, 2) conversion, and 3) malicious destruction of property. Because there were no other claims remaining against Olmo, summary judgment was entered in her favor, which was later affirmed on appeal. See E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo, 864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). E & A proceeded on its claim for negligence, and Trujillo and Superior proceeded on their counterclaims for wrongful eviction, and storage charges. The jury returned verdicts in favor of E & A on its negligence claims against Su…
-
Superior Garlic Int'l, Inc. v. E & A Produce Corp., 934 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…v. Superior Garlic Int’l, Inc., 864 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, that is immaterial for our purposes. . Olmo had been successful in removing herself from the controversy on a summary judgment motion. See E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo, 864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). .The successor trial judge, Judge Robert Pi-neiro, although not included as a respondent in the caption of the petition, is a "formal party to the petition for mandamus.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(e).…
-
Ghannam v. Mark D. Shelnutt, P.A., 199 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ration. See Trans Health Mgmt. Inc. v. Nunziata, 159 So. 3d 850, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). There is nothing in the record on appeal that supports an award of fees incurred by the corporation against Ghannam personally. See E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo, 864 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“Officers of a corporation are not liable for corporate acts simply by reason of the officer’s relation to the corporation.” (citing Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 941, 944 (F…
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
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)