From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 25, 1962
145 So. 2d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Opinion

No. 2505.

October 5, 1962. Rehearing Denied October 25, 1962.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County, Otis Farrington, J.

Herbert L. Nadeau, of Anderson Nadeau, Miami, Maurer, Maurer Maurer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert M. Curtis, of Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra Gore, Miami, for appellees.


Koren Kreedian, plaintiff below, appeals a final decree entered in two consolidated cases. The chancellor granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, after the plaintiff rested, upon the ground that "insufficient evidence had been presented by the plaintiff to entitle him to any relief * * *."

Suit was instituted by a minority shareholder complaining of corporate mismanagement and watering down of stock designed to squeeze him out of the corporations involved. He requested that the stock issue be declared illegal and prayed for a receivership, injunction and corporate dissolution. The question before the chancellor was whether the minority shareholder was entitled to relief.

The decision of a chancellor carries with it the presumption of correctness upon appellate review. It therefore devolved upon the plaintiff to demonstrate on appeal that the decision was clearly erroneous. Joyner v. Andrews, Fla.App. 1962, 137 So.2d 870. This he failed to demonstrate.

A comprehensive review of the record reveals no error or abuse of discretion of the chancellor in dismissing the complaint. The allegations are replete with conclusions and paper issues. We find no merit in plaintiff's contentions which would justify a reversal of the chancellor's findings and accordingly no good purpose would be accomplished by further elaboration. See Curtis v. Briscoe, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So.2d 450; Jones v. Harvey, Fla. 1955, 82 So.2d 371; Freedman v. Fox, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 692; 7 Fla.Jur., Corporations, § 356.

No corporate mismanagement having been demonstrated and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that there was no sufficient evidence upon which the chancellor could have found for the plaintiff. Martin v. Thompson, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 744.

Affirmed.

SHANNON, C.J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 25, 1962
145 So. 2d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
Case details for

Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KOREN KREEDIAN, APPELLANT v. BCK LAND, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 25, 1962

Citations

145 So. 2d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Citing Cases

York Research Corporation v. Prelec

The final judgment is accordingly affirmed. Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aero Boliviano, S.A. (Fla.App.…

Marx v. Goldfinger

Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App. 1957, 96 So.2d 227. The appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the…