Ainsley Realty Co. v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 27 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 35023,35023 |
| Citation | 189 So.2d 609 |
| Parties | AINSLEY REALTY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Richard I. KRAMER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Deniel Neal Heller, Miami, for appellant.
Michael H. Kramer, Miami, for appellee.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the District Court of Appeal, Third District, properly dismissed an appeal of a corporation against which a final judgment was recovered after the corporation had been voluntarily dissolved in 1963, on the ground a dissolved corporation has no standing to prosecute an appeal. The suit in which such judgment was recovered was commenced prior to the dissolution.
The order of dismissal of the District Court reads as follows:
(See 179 So.2d 630)
Appellant's appeal to us is predicated upon the ground that the District Court's order of dismissal of the appeal initially passed upon the validity of a state statute, viz., F.S. § 608.30, F.S.A., which is assigned in said order as the statutory authority for the dismissal. It is obvious from the order itself that Appellant is mistaken in asserting that the District Court passed upon the validity of the statute. However, Justice in this case requires that we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. This is so because the District Court overlooked that the case it cites in its order does not support the proposition that an appeal of the dissolved corporation must be dismissed. A cursory inspection of the cited case, City of Hollywood v. Bair, supra, reveals that the case as finally decided on rehearing held directly opposite to the conclusion of the District Court that the appeal of the dissolved corporation must be dismissed. It appears that the District Court of Appeal directed its attention to statements in the original opinion in Bair, viz.:
'(t)he rule is well settled that all actions pending against a corporation are abated by its dissolution * * * and also are pending appeals by such corporation * * *'
and
'* * * (it) has also been held that a corporation Itself has no standing in a court to procure relief from a judgment or decree rendered against it after dissolution * * *' (emphasis supplied) 178 So., text 852.
Had the above pronouncements by this Court in Bair been the final disposition of the cause therein, it is conceded that Appellant herein would appear to have been properly dismissed below. Such, however, is not the case. The District Court of Appeal either overlooked or failed to examine that portion of Bair which was finally decided on rehearing. Upon rehearing in Bair this Court stated that in reaching its initial decision the dissolved corporation had no standing in the courts to procure relief from a judgment rendered against it after dissolution it had 'overlooked the provisions of section 7 of chapter 16880, Acts of 1935 * * *' (Bair at 852). Section 7 of said act reads as follows:
'Any judgment previously secured against any such corporation shall remain in full force and effect against any assets of the corporation And any suit in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh
...include taking appeals from a final judgment, on a suit which was in progress prior to the corporation's dissolution. Ainsley Realty Co. v. Kramer, 189 So.2d 609 (Fla.1966). We therefore reject Dade County's argument that WASA could not incur liability for attorney's fees after November 1, ......
-
Threlkeld v. Tortuga Marine Salvage Co.
...prosecute causes of action that accrued to the corporation during its period of viability. This action was proper. Ainsley Realty Company v. Kramer, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 609. See also Gould v. Brick (5th CA 1966) 358 F.2d Finally, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the trial cou......
-
Ainsley Realty Co v. Kramer, 65-329
...WHEREAS, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed July 27, 1966 (189 So.2d 609) and mandate dated September 20, 1966, now lodged in this court, quashed this court's judgment of dismissal with directions to reinstate t......