COLLINS FRUIT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
M. R. COLLINS, 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.
This case concerns whether a majority shareholder in a closely held family corporation can discharge the president and general manager, who is also a minority shareholder, without cause, despite a prior employment contract. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the president could not be discharged without cause.
No, the president and general manager cannot be discharged without cause, as his employment contract remains valid and enforceable.
“His finding that there was no good cause to discharge Collins is supported by adequate evidence and by the law governing closely held family corporations and should not be disturbed.”
This quote establishes the court's affirmation of the lower court's finding that there was no sufficient cause for discharge, referencing the specific legal context of family corporations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.R. Collins, the founder of Collins Fruit Company, had a five-year employment contract as President and General Manager. After a dispute with his wif…
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 Discharge For Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
M. R. Collins ran his business as a sole proprietorship for years, then incorporated it as Collins Fruit Company, with himself, wife and son each holding a minority of the stock and with Collins under a five-year employment contract as President and General Manager. Following a dispute between Collins and his wife, the wife and son sought to have the employment contract held invalid. This court held, 189 So.2d 262, that the contract was valid and that Collins could not be discharged without cause. The wife and son then alleged that M. R. Collins hunted and fished a lot, did not keep the customers happy and issued checks on the corporate account for personal bills. The chancellor heard evidence that Collins hunted and fished, as he had with his wife in happier times, but that the business hadn’t suffered. The only dissatisfied customer to testify was rebutted by the testimony of the witness’ mother, who owned the grove in question. Collins had paid some personal fertilizer bills and attorneys’ fees out of the corporate account, but there was evidence that this was in keeping with a pattern known to and acquiesced in by the wife and son, and that the son himself had used corporate funds for personal purposes. The chancellor required Collins to restore to the corporation sums taken for personal use. His finding that there was no good cause to discharge Collins is supported by adequate evidence and by the law governing closely held family corporations and should not be disturbed. See Etheredge v. Barrow, 102 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1958).
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mrs. B. M. Etheredge v. Barrow, 102 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Collins v. Collins Fruit Co., 189 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)