SAMUEL GOLDSTEIN AND SYLVIA GOLDSTEIN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SARA PETTINGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX D. B. N., 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.
Goldstein and his wife appealed a decree finding them jointly and severally liable for wrongfully directing corporate checks and concealing business facts from the majority stockholder. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that sufficient evidence supported the chancellor's conclusions regarding their breach of fiduciary duty.
The court affirmed the chancellor's decree, holding that sufficient competent evidence supported the findings that the Goldsteins were jointly and severally liable for wrongfully directing corporate disbursements without authorization and concealing business information from the majority stockholder.
“At a time when SAMUEL GOLD-STEIN and SYLVIA GOLDSTEIN were the officers and directors of the corporation and at a time when they were in complete and sole control of the fiscal and management affairs of same, they did wrongfully, without authorization or ratification, and with the personal knowledge, participation and aid of each other, direct that checks be drawn”
Establishes the factual basis for finding the defendants liable for wrongful diversion of corporate funds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel and Sylvia Goldstein were officers, directors, and one-third stockholders of Florida State Sales, Inc. The beneficial owner of two-thirds of th…
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 Joint And Several Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause originated in the circuit court by the beneficial owner of two-thirds of the capital stock of Florida State Sales, Inc., seeking an accounting of corporate monies and disbursements from the appellants [who were defendants in the trial court], one of whom held the remaining one-third capital stock interest in the corporation.
Following lengthy pleadings and final hearing, the chancellor rendered a decree to account and made the following findings, in part, which described the actions of the defendants, to wit:
* * * *. * *
“At a time when SAMUEL GOLD-STEIN and SYLVIA GOLDSTEIN were the officers and directors of the corporation and at a time when they were in complete and sole control of the fiscal and management affairs of same, they did wrongfully, without authorization or ratification, and with the personal knowledge, participation and aid of each other, direct that checks be drawn * * *
******
“ * * * Their purpose and intent, for their own benefit, was to keep from the majority ownership of the corporation all such pertinent facts and the very business itself. Further, they failed to render proper account of their stewardship.
“The Court finds and holds that the liability of SAMUEL GOLDSTEIN and SYLVIA GOLDSTEIN, for the wrongful acts aforesaid, is joint and several.”
******
The appellants have prosecuted this appeal and have preserved numerous points for review. However, the thrust of each is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s findings.
This final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 782; Williams v. Guyton, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 7. If there is any competent evidence or a reasonable inference therefrom, which will support the chancellor’s findings, he should be affirmed. See: Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 499; Seiff v. Presto Brick Machine Corp., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 700. Examining the record in light of these principles, we find sufficient evidence from which the chancellor could have entered the final decree here under review. Therefore, same will be affirmed. See the following authorities: Flight Equipment & Engineering Corp. v. Shelton, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 615; Smallwood v. Moretti, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 628; Red Bud Realty Co. v. South, 96 Ark. 281, 131 S.W. 340; 19 Am. Jur.2d, Corporations, § 1274, 5 Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations, §§ 2111 through 2114.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Outler v. Hyman Berman, 234 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…ee also McIntosh v. Wibbeler, Fla.1958, 106 So. 2d 195. We find that there was sufficient, competent evidence in the record and reasonable inferences therefrom which support the [*725] chancellor’s findings. See Goldstein v. Pettinger, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 740. The order herein appealed is, therefore, Affirmed.…
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc., 186 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…mises.” ij? ‡ ^ <4* The final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 782; Williams v. Guyton, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 7; Goldstein v. Pettinger, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 740. If there is substantial, competent evidence to support the chancellor’s finding, it should be affirmed. See: Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 499; Seiff v. Presto Brick Machine Corp., Fla. App.1964, 168 So. 2d 700; Goldstein v. Pettinge…
-
Goldstein v. Pettinger, 188 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 183 So. 2d 740.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flight Equip. & Eng'g Corp. v. Shelton, 103 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1958)
- Seiff v. Presto Brick Mach. Corp., 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sunset Realty Corp. v. Dawson McDANIEL, 165 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bertman v. Solomon, 166 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Smallwood v. Moretti, 128 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Dixie Williams v. Guyton, 167 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)