ADAM DEBLASE AND JENNIE DEBLASE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINTER GARDEN CO-OPERATIVE APARTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ANNE SCHICK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND BEN SCHICK, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Appellants sought to recover money paid for unregistered stock under Florida securities law. The trial court dismissed the complaint, requiring a prior ruling by the Florida Securities Commission that the stock was required to be registered. The appellate court reversed, holding that courts have authority to decide securities law violations without prerequisite administrative action.
No prerequisite commission ruling is required. The statute authorizes suit in court, and courts have inherent authority to rule on the merits, including whether there has been a violation of the securities statute.
“The condition imposed by the trial court is not found in the language of the statute, nor may it be implied. The statute authorizes suit in court, and the court necessarily may make such rulings on the merits of the matter as are essential to determination of the cause, including whether there has been a violation of chapter 517, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as alleged.”
The core holding that courts have independent authority to decide securities violations without prerequisite administrative action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants purchased stock in Winter Garden Co-Operative Apartments, Inc. and later sought to void the purchase, alleging the stock was required to be…
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 Registration Of Securities cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants brought an action under chapter 517 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1, declaring election to avoid a stock purchase and seeking to recover money paid for unregistered stock which by an amendment to the complaint was allegedly required to be registered with the Florida Securities Commission. The complaint was dismissed on defendants’ motion, on the ground that a ruling by the commission that the stock was required to be registered was a pre*308requisite to suit2. The condition imposed by the trial court is not found in the language of the statute, nor may it be implied. The statute authorizes suit in court, and the court necessarily may make such rulings on the merits of the matter as are essential to determination of the cause, including whether there has been a violation of chapter 517, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as alleged. Ap-pellees cite no authorities in support of the dismissal order, but argue it was proper under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. There was no showing here of applicability or need to resort to that doctrine. See United States v. Western P. R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126, 132. Cf. Northeast Airlines, Inc. v. Weiss, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 884. The complaint as amended was sufficient, and the order of dismissal is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1956)
- Ne. Airlines, Inc. v. Weiss, 113 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)