WILLIAM L. SAGE ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. STEPHEN L. PERRONE AND ROBERT A. JARVIS, JR., APPELLEES
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.
Shareholders' attorneys sought mandamus to compel inspection of corporate books and records to determine stock value. The court granted the writ but modified it to limit inspection to records reasonably necessary for valuing the shareholder's stock, rejecting the lower court's broader mandate that would have exposed trade secrets and competitive information.
A shareholder's attorneys may obtain a writ of mandamus to inspect corporate records when seeking to determine the value of the shareholder's stock, which is a legitimate purpose. However, the scope of inspection must be narrowed to only those records reasonably necessary for accomplishing that specific purpose, not all corporate books and records.
[1] A shareholder, acting through an agent with a power of attorney, may petition for a writ of mandamus to inspect corporate books and records.
[2] A shareholder's purpose of ascertaining stock value, determining dividend availability, and ensuring proper corporate administration is a legitimate basis for inspecting…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“petitioners primarily desire to inspect the books and records of Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc. in order to determine the value of the 30 shares of outstanding stock owned by their client, Edwin T. Thomas, Jr., a legitimate purpose”
Establishes that stock valuation is a legitimate purpose supporting mandamus for inspection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwin T. Thomas, Jr. owned 30 of 100 shares in Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc. and gave power of attorney to Perrone and Jarvis to inspect corporate books …
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 Shareholder Inspection Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Perrone and Robert Jarvis, appellees herein, petitioned for an alternative writ of mandamus. In their petition, they alleged that (1) Edwin T. Thomas, Jr., who is the owner of 30 of the 100 shares of outstanding stock in Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc., conferred upon them the power of attorney to inspect all of the books and records of Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc.; (2) Edwin Thomas, Jr. personally requested and through the petitioners, his attorneys, made formal written demand to inspect the books and records of the corporation; (3) the purpose of the examination demanded was to ascertain the value of the 30 shares of stock owned by Edwin T. Thomas, Jr. to determine the availability of funds for the payment of dividends and to determine whether or not the affairs of the corporation were being administered properly; (4) the demand was refused. The alternative writ was issued. In response thereto, appellants filed a motion to quash and a return to the alternative writ of mandamus in which they basically alleged a general denial of their refusal to permit inspection of the books and records of the corporation and further alleged that Edwin T. Thomas, Jr. and his wife both are employed by Aaron Rents, Inc., a competitor of Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc., and that should petitioners be permitted to inspect the records of the respondent corporation relating to trade secrets, customer lists and other details of the operation thereof, respondents would be damaged irreparably. Thereupon, appellees moved to strike respondents’ motion to quash certain portions of the response to the alternative writ of mandamus. After hearing argument on all the pleadings cited hereinabove, the court denied the motion to quash and granted petitioners their writ of mandamus to inspect the corporate books and records described in paragraph 11 thereof as follows:
“11. . . . the general ledger; the accounts receivable ledger and supporting invoices and documentation; the accounts payable ledger and supporting invoices and documentation; the corporate checkbook, bank deposit slips and cancelled checks; the corporate income tax returns with supporting schedules; the audited and unaudited financial statements; the balance sheets; the cash receipts and disbursements journals; the bylaws and any amendments thereto; the corporate charter of articles of incorporation and any amendments thereto; the corporate minute book; and, the corporate stock book.”
Respondents appeal therefrom.
We initially reviewed respondents first two points on appeal and have 'determined that no reversible error has been made to appear therein. See Rahn v. State, 137 Fla. 692, 188 So. 584 (1939); State v. McLendon, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So. 2d 783 and Liebman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 645 and cases cited therein.
As to appellants’ point III, we find that some merit has been presented therein with respect to their contention that the writ of mandamus permitting inspection of virtually all of the books and records of the corporation is in effect too broad.
It affirmatively appears from the record in the case sub judice that' petitioners primarily desire to inspect the books and records of Thomas Tent & Rental, Inc. in order to determine the value of the 30 shares of outstanding stock owned by their client, Edwin T. Thomas, Jr., a legitimate purpose. See Liebman v. State, supra.
We conclude that only the following records are necessary for the accomplishment of petitioners’ purpose: a copy of the corporate income tax returns, the general ledger, the balance sheets, profit and loss statements and the corporate stock book. Accordingly, we hereby modify the final judgment and peremptory writ of mandamus to direct that the petitioners inspection of the corporate records be limited thereto. In all other respects the final judgment and writ are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne Slater Phillips v. Slater, 378 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Sage v. State ex rel Perrone, 313 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
-
Jewelers Int'l Showcase, Inc. v. Mandell, 529 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…e the value of the stock owned by the stockholder, it has been held that, generally speaking, the above-stated business records are the sole relevant corporate records which the corporation must produce for inspection. Sage v. State ex rel. Perrone, 313 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). No showing has been made in this case that additional records are needed to determine the value of respondent’s corporate stock. See News-Journal Corp. v. State ex rel. Gore, 136 Fla. 620, 624, 187 So. 271, 272 (1939). Cer…
-
Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Gnaizda, 633 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…at allowed in URT Industries v. Scorpio Music, Inc., 567 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1311 (Fla.1991); Jewelers International Showcase, Inc. v. Mandell, 529 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); and Sage v. State ex rel. Perrone, 313 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). That argument is without merit. In the first place, section 607.1602 took effect July 1, 1990. Ch. 89-154, §§ 151, 168, Laws of Fla. It explicitly provides for access to accounting records, as well as other books and records, so…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rutang Corp. v. Miami Fin. Corp., 109 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Liebman v. State ex rel. David K. Pinks, 136 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Rahn v. State, 137 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1939)