From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 10, 2003
864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

finding record did not show any competent evidence that the vice president was involved in any of the acts of the corporation, so summary judgment in her favor was proper

Summary of this case from Costa Inv'rs v. Liberty Grande, LLC

Opinion

Case No. 3D03-1005.

Opinion filed December 10, 2003. Rehearing Denied January 30, 2004.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Roberto M. Pineiro, Judge, Lower Tribunal No. 01-10128.

James H. Greason, for appellant.

Schatzman Schatzman, and Arnold Schatzman, for appellee.

Before COPE, GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.


Appellant E A Produce Corporation filed a civil action against appellee Nilda Olmo, her brother Silfredo Trujillo and the company they own and operate, Superior Garlic Corporation. We affirm.

Olmo is the vice-president of Superior Garlic. E A asserted various claims against Olmo, Trujillo, and Superior Garlic. The claims against Olmo, individually, included civil theft, conversion and malicious destruction of property, in connection with the removal of a control panel from a garlic peeling machine that was the subject of a failed joint venture between the parties.

On appeal, E A challenges the trial court's Summary Final Judgment entered in favor of Olmo. Officers of a corporation are not liable for corporate acts simply by reason of the officer's relation to the corporation. See Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Servs., Inc., 805 So.2d 941, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). It is true that individual officers and agents of a corporation may be held personally liable for their tortious acts, even if such acts were committed within the scope of their employment or as corporate officers. See Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

A careful review of the record in this case, however, indicates that E A did not present any competent evidence to demonstrate that Olmo was involved in any of the acts E A alleges in its Second Amended Complaint. The record thus reflects no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Therefor, in the absence of any competent evidence of wrongdoing on Olmo's part that would make her personally or individually liable, the trial court was correct to enter Final Summary Judgment in Olmo's favor.See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 10, 2003
864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

finding record did not show any competent evidence that the vice president was involved in any of the acts of the corporation, so summary judgment in her favor was proper

Summary of this case from Costa Inv'rs v. Liberty Grande, LLC
Case details for

E & A Produce Corp. v. Olmo

Case Details

Full title:E A PRODUCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. NILDA OLMO, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 10, 2003

Citations

864 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Superior Garlic Intern. v. E a Corp.

The trial court granted Superior's summary judgment motion as to 1) civil theft, 2) conversion, and 3)…

Superior Garlic Intern. v. E A.

Olmo had been successful in removing herself from the controversy on a summary judgment motion. See E A…