E. HARRIS DREW, AS ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF A. A. THOMPSON, DECEASED,
v.
GAIS REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision regarding the distribution of assets of Gais Realty Corporation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings concerning a disputed lot.
Yes, the evidence presented in the record was sufficient to support the findings of the trial court.
“that the plaintiff and the intervenor have failed to meet the burden of proving that the title to said Lot 26 of Tangier Estates is in' fact in the Gais Realty "Corporation;”
This quote explains the basis for dismissing the lot from the lis pendens and freeing it from claims against Gais Realty Corporation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case is related to a prior controversy concerning the distribution of assets of Gais Realty Corporation. A specific lot, Lot 26 of Tangier Estate…
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 Dividends cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal arises out of the same controversy as Gais, et al., Executors v. Drew, Adm., filed this term. In the action for distribution of the assets of Gais Realty Corporation', one of the lots alleged to be part of the assets of the corporation was dismissed from the lis pendens and freed from all claims of Gais Realty Corporation, on the grounds “that the plaintiff and the intervenor have failed to meet the burden of proving that the title to said Lot 26 of Tangier Estates is in' fact in the Gais Realty “Corporation; * *
In an amendment to the original bill of complaint it is alleged “that said conveyance of said Lot 26, Tangier Estates by said Gais Realty Corporation to PI. M. Gais, Inc., was, is and has since its transfer been void, frustrate and of non-effect for the reason that said conveyance was made without consideration therefor and for the purpose of the wrongful dissipation of the assets of- the said Gais Realty Corporation, and for the purpose of hindering the plaintiff in the assertion of his rights as a stockholder of the said Gais Realty Corporation, and for the purpose of defrauding your plaintiff of his proper distribution of the dividends thereon.”
The evidence of the transaction as presented by the record is sufficient to support the findings of the trial court •and the final decree appealed from is—
*143Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.