KOREN KREEDIAN, APPELLANT
v.
BCK LAND, INC., ET AL., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding no error in the chancellor's determination that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of corporate mismanagement.
A minority shareholder sued for corporate mismanagement and stock watering, seeking to have a stock issue declared illegal and requesting a receiversh…
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 Minority Shareholder Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Koren Kreedian, plaintiff below, appeals a final decree entered in two consolidated cases. The chancellor granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, after the plaintiff rested, upon the ground that “insufficient evidence had been presented by the plaintiff to entitle him to any relief * * ⅜»
Suit was instituted by a minority shareholder complaining of corporate mismanagement and watering down of stock designed to squeeze him out of the corporations involved. Pie requested that the stock issue be declared illegal and prayed for a receivership, injunction and corporate dissolution. The question before the chancellor was whether the minority shareholder was entitled to relief.
The decision of a chancellor carries with it the presumption of correctness upon appellate review. It therefore devolved upon the plaintiff to demonstrate on appeal that the decision was clearly erroneous. Joyner v. Andrews, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 870. This he failed to demonstrate.
A comprehensive review of the record reveals no error or abuse of discretion of the chancellor in dismissing the complaint. The allegations are replete with conclusions and paper issues. We find no merit in plaintiff’s contentions which would justify a reversal of the chancellor’s findings and accordingly no good purpose would be accomplished by further elaboration. See Curtis v. Briscoe, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 450; Jones v. Harvey, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 371; Freedman v. Fox, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 692; 7 Fla.Jur., Corporations, § 356.
No corporate mismanagement having been demonstrated and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that there was no sufficient evidence upon which the chan*551cellor could have found for the plaintiff. Martin v. Thompson, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 744.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…68, and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 227. The appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is clearly erroneous. Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 550. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that this decision is clearly erroneous, and we find that there was substantial competent evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court. The decision of the trial court is therefore Affirmed.…
-
Ball v. Balint Papp, 317 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…DCA Fla.1972); Staton v. Staton, 231 [*804] So. 2d 531 (1st DCA Fla. 1970); Citrus Engineering, Inc. v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 231 So. 2d 265 (2nd DCA Fla.1970); Mank v. Hendrickson, 195 So. 2d 574 (4th DCA Fla.1967); Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc., 145 So. 2d 550 (2nd DCA Fla.1962); Stengel v. Biggar, 129 Fla. 627, 176 So. 786 (1937); Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869 (1921); Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97 (1891); 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, §§ 314, 316 (1963). We affirm the judgment of the Court…
-
York Research Corp. v. Prelec, 204 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…t.1 The final judgment is accordingly affirmed. WIGGINTON, C, J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur. . Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aero Boliviano, S. A. (Fla.App.1963), 157 So. 2d 708; Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc. (Fla.App.1962), 145 So. 2d 550.…
Authorities Cited
- Joyner v. Andrews, 137 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Martin v. Thompson, 124 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Curtis v. Nat R. Briscoe, 129 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Justice v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1953)
- Freedman v. FOX, 67 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1953)
- Jones v. Harvey, 82 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1955)