MORRIS STADLER AND ALBERT STADLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE GERRY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Trustees Morris and Albert Stadler appealed a decree finding them liable for breaching their fiduciary duties in managing trust assets under a guarantee agreement assigned to The Gerry Corporation. The court affirmed the lower court's findings that the trustees wrongfully exercised their powers, made improper disbursements, and must account for misappropriated funds plus attorney's fees.
The trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and are supported by substantial evidence. The trustees wrongfully exercised their powers and made improper expenditures for which they must account, and they must pay the successor trustee $23,727.94 plus reasonable attorney's fees and accounting costs. The fact that withdrawals were made on advice of counsel does not cure a breach of fiduciary duty absent a showing of good faith.
“The chancellor's findings of fact and conclusions of law come to us with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate examination of trial court findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSilverman entered into an agreement with the Stadlers whereby they were guaranteed certain mortgages would be repaid and lands acquired through forecl…
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 Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendants from a final decree in favor of the plaintiff, The Gerry Corporation.
The Gerry Corporation, as the assignee of Benedict Silverman, filed an amended complaint in which it was alleged that Sil-verman entered into an agreement with the defendants wherein the defendants were guaranteed that certain mortgages which they had purchased would be repaid according to the terms of the agreement and that certain lands which they had acquired through foreclosure would be sold for not less than a certain amount. Pursuant to the agreement the defendants, as trustees, took possession of certain assets of Silver-man and became vested with title thereto in a fiduciary capacity. Subsequently, Silver-man sold and assigned all of his rights and interests under the agreement, and in the assets referred to therein, to the Gerry Corporation whose position as assignee has been recognized by the defendants. It was further alleged that the defendants had jointly and severally been guilty of breaches of the agreement which constituted breaches of the fiduciary relationship due plaintiff.
The plaintiff prayed that the court require the defendants to account for monies received under the agreement and if as a result of the accounting the court should find that the defendants have wrongfully exercised the power of trustees and made improper disbursements that restoration be required and the trustees be removed. Plaintiff also requested reimbursement for all costs, charges, expenses and attorney’s fees for prosecution of the suit.
The answer admitted the withdrawal of certain funds from the trusts assets but denied that such constituted breaches of a fiduciary relationship or that any sums were wrongfully or improperly expended. It was further admitted that the action in withdrawing funds was taken after careful and deliberate consideration and examination of all rights, title and obligations of said guarantee agreement.
In part, the chancellor found that in the management and disposition of the trust properties and in the performance of their duties under the agreement the defendants wrongfully exercised the powers conveyed to them and have been guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance. Further, that the defendants have made improper expenditures for which they are obligated to account to the plaintiff, and that the equities are with the plaintiff.
The chancellor decreed that the defendants be removed as trustees and that the defendants, jointly and severally, pay the successor trustee the sum of $23,727.94 which sum constitutes those items improperly and wrongfully paid by the defendant to themselves or others, or wrongfully charged against the assets in their hands, or paid arbitrarily and without authorization under the trust. The chancellor also decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants the reasonable value of its attorney’s fees together with costs and reasonable accounting fees.
The defendants contend that the findings of the chancellor are clearly erroneous. It is argued that there is no evidence in the record to substantiate the findings that the defendants were guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance, that, while their right to the withdrawals may be questioned, the fact that they were made under the relationship existing between the parties and upon prior advice of counsel does not evidence bad faith. The defendants also contend that the allowance of attorney’s fees is erroneous where the acts complained of are not done in bad faith.
The chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to us with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.1 Aft*301er an examination of the record and briefs, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s findings, and that the defendants have failed to clearly demonstrate that substantial error was committed.
Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desser & Garfield, Inc. v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n OF Am., 201 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Fein, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ut they will be reversed only upon a holding of the appellate court that the findings are without substantial, competent evidence to support them. See: Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So. 2d 222, 225; Stadler v. Gerry Corporation, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 299. An appellate court will not reverse findings of fact made by a trial court upon conflicting evidence. Tassinari v. Chaney, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 376, 379; Central Bank and Trust Company v. Banner, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 201, 202. The disputed…
Authorities Cited
- J. C. Frell and Jeanne v. Frell, 154 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)