JAMES H. PRICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A LAST DIRECTOR AND TRUSTEE OF JAMES H. PRICE & CO., INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. J. ROME, 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.
James H. Price appeals from a trial court order declaring that A. J. Rome owned 40,000 shares of Airlift International, Inc. stock. Price argued Rome was his confidential agent and should account for profits from the stock's resale, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Rome was the absolute owner.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Rome was the absolute owner of 40,000 shares. The evidence, while arguably supportive of Price's position, was not clear and convincing, and substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision.
“In order to have a court impose a constructive trust, the party seeking it must convince the court by clear proof that refusal to impose such a trust will amount to a fraud.”
Establishes the stringent evidentiary standard required for imposing a constructive trust
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrice sold 40,000 shares of Airlift International stock to Rome through Robert M. Hewitt for $10,000. Rome later sold those shares for approximately $…
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 Cross Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by James H. Price is from a final order adjudicating the claim of A. J. Rome, the appellee, to 40,000 shares of stock in Airlift International, Inc. The instant appeal is one of several which have reached this court that concern various aspects of an action for a declaratory decree instituted by Airlift International, Inc., against James H. Price, A. J. Rome, and others to determine ownership of 1,704,274 shares of Airlift common stock.
In his answer to Airlift’s complaint, by a counterclaim against Airlift and by a cross-claim against Price, Rome alleged that he was the absolute owner of 40,000 shares of Airlift stock. He alleged that he purchased those shares from Price (through Robert M. Hewitt, another defendant to the main action) for $10,000. Rome later sold the 40,000 for about $156,000. Price’s answer to Rome’s cross-claim alleged that he was entitled to 22,000 shares of the 40,000 shares Rome claimed and that Rome was entitled to only 8,000 shares. After trial the court entered a final order which declared that Rome did in fact own 40,000 shares of Airlift International, Inc.
As we understand it, Price’s position is that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find that Rome was Price’s confidential agent and should be made to account to him for what Price labels the unconscionable profit Rome made on the stock. Price urges that Rome was unjustly enriched at his expense and that a constructive trust (presumably on the proceeds of the stock sale) should be imposed in his favor. The record contains some evidence which arguably could support Price’s position, but that evidence is not clear and convincing. In order to have a court impose a constructive trust, the party seeking it must convince the court by clear proof that refusal to impose such a trust will amount to a fraud. Cf. Estey v. Vizor, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 576. Moreover, there is substantial evidence contrary to Price’s position. Where there is substantial evidence to support the decision of a trial court, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So.2d 222; Sottile v. Mershon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 481.
The appellants have failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or other reversible error. Therefore the finding that A. J. Rome was the owner of 40,000 shares of Airlift International, Inc., stock is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…e to support the trial court’s findings and judgment in favor of Mrs. Shannon on Cole Taylor’s claim of unjust enrichment. As a result, the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed. See, e.g., Cravero v. Dea, 39 So. 2d 216 (Pla. 1949); Price v. Rome, 222 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(where there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the trial court, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion). Claim for Constructiv…
-
Voyle C. Johnson v. Kruglak, 246 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 264; Price v. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 374; Price v. Airlift International, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 765; Hewitt v. Price, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 247; Price v. Rome, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 252; Baya v. Price, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 253. The litigation was begun by a complaint for declaratory relief in which the plaintiff, Airlift International, Inc., sought the aid of the circuit court in order to determine the rightful owners of over…
-
Price v. Rome, 237 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…he appellee, Rome, was adjudicated to be the owner of 22,000 shares of stock in Airlift International, Inc. That decision was appealed to this court by Price, appellant herein, and our decision affirming the adjudication of ownership was reported at 222 So. 2d 252. In connection with the latter appeal, motion was made for supersedeas and an order of supersedeas was entered setting su-persedeas bond at $50,000.00. The $50,-000.00 bond was posted in two separate bonds: the first was in the penal sum of $28,000…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1962)
- Sottile v. Mershon, 166 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Estey v. Hunter J. Vizor, 113 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)