ARMENIAN HOTEL OWNERS, INC. AND DIRAN PAPAZIAN, APPELLANTS, JOHN KULHANJIAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS A STOCKHOLDER OF ARMENIAN HOTEL OWNERS, INC., SUING ON BEHALF OF SAID CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded a lower court decree that failed to properly implement the court's prior mandate requiring Papazian to account for his trusteeship of corporate assets rather than simply pay damages.
The lower court's amended decree did not properly follow the mandate. The court clarified that the mandate required the lower court to vacate the damages portion and require Papazian to account for all monies received in operation of the leased premises and the security deposit, less equitable credits for expenditures benefiting the trust property.
“to require Papazian to account for his trusteeship of the corporate assets and thereafter to enter such decree as in justice and equity may be required”
Statement of the court's original mandate requiring Papazian to account for his stewardship rather than simply pay damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePapazian was involved in a dispute with Kulhanjian regarding Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. The lower court had originally awarded $26,000 in damages aga…
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 Equity And Good Conscience cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before the court on an interlocutory appeal taken by the appellant, Dirán Papazian, from an amended final decree entered by the lower court pursuant to the mandate of this court in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., v. Kulhanjian, 1957, 96 So. 2d 146, 147. Jurisdiction to review the amended final decree on an interlocutory appeal under Florida Appellate Rule 4.2 is assumed by this court under the policy, hereby declared, that where a cause was pending in this cotirt prior to the effective date of revised Article V of the constitution, F.S.A., all orders, judgments or decrees entered by the lower court in such cause to effectuate the mandate of this court are reviewable by this court as the court of prior appellate jurisdiction.
By our original opinion on rehearing granted, we reversed the decree of the lower court awarding “damages” against Papazian in the amount of $26,000 and directed the lower court “to require Papazian to account for his trusteeship of the corporate assets and thereafter to enter such decree as in justice and equity may be required.” It was our intention, perhaps imperfectly expressed, to direct the court to vacate that portion of the decree assessing damages against Papazian and to require Papazian to account for his stewardship of the corporate assets, including all monies received by him in the operation of the leased premises, and the security deposit (whether in cash or by credit memorandum), less such expenditures by him for the benefit of the trust property as the Chancellor finds, in equity and good conscience, should be credited to his account.
The decree here reviewed did not properly follow the mandate of this court. Accordingly, it is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
THOMAS, Acting Chief Justice, and DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
McARTHUR v. McARTHUR, 106 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1958)…d the husband was ordered to pay the wife’s attorney $5,000 for his services in this cause. The husband appeals this order. We have retained jurisdiction of this cause under the rule announced in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 896. The husband raises three questions. First, he argues that the increase in alimony is excessive and is not supported by the evidence. The record reflects ample evidence to support the increase in alimony. The husband has not shown that the chancell…
-
SAX Enters., Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 107 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1958)…M. This appeal is before the court on transfer from the Third District Court of Appeal in accordance with Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (d), 31 F.S.A., and the decision of this court in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 896. On the prior appeal this court reversed a money judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and remanded the cause for a new trial. Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. David & Dash, Inc., Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 421. The plaintiff’s suit had for its principal purpo…
-
Emmett Young v. Cobbs, 110 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1959)…appeal from a judgment entered by the trial court following the mandate of this court in Young v. Cobbs, Fla. 1955, 83 So. 2d 417. Jurisdiction attaches under the policy declared by this court in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 896. This suit was one for damages for wrongful eviction brought by the plaintiff-appellant, as lessee, against the defendant-ap-pellee, as lessor. At the first trial the trial judge dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the defendant on the…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, 96 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1956)