Batur v. SIGNATURE PROPS. OF NORTHWEST FLA.
Decision Date | 19 May 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 1D04-1358.,1D04-1358. |
Citation | 903 So.2d 985 |
Parties | Kenneth E. BATUR, Appellant, v. SIGNATURE PROPERTIES OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, a Florida Corporation, William H. Smith, South Walton Properties, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Sandpiper Ventures, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David A. Higley, Esquire of Higley & Barfield, P.A., Altamonte Springs, and J. Andrew Talbert, Esquire and Larry A. Matthews, Esquire of Bozeman, Jenkins & Matthews, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Stephen H. Grimes, Esquire and Susan L. Kelsey, Esquire of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tallahassee, and Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for Appellee Signature Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc.
Lawrence Keefe, Esquire of Anchors, Foster, McInnis & Keefe, P.A., Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellee William H. Smith.
Amy A. Perry, Esquire of Pleat and Perry, P.A., Destin, for Appellee South Walton Properties, LLC and Sandpiper Ventures, LLC.
Kenneth E. Batur appeals a circuit court order insofar as it dismisses with prejudice, under section 607.07401, Florida Statutes (2002), the derivative claims he filed, as a shareholder of Signature Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Signature), against South Walton Properties, L.L.C. (South Walton) and Sandpiper Ventures, L.L.C. (Sandpiper).1 We have jurisdiction2 to the extent the order finally dismisses all claims against South Walton, Sandpiper, and First National Bank & Trust (First National),3see Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k)(2005), even though claims filed by and against William H. Smith, Mr. Batur's former business associate, remain pending in the trial court. To the extent the circuit court's order is a partial, final judgment dismissing South Walton and Sandpiper, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Incorporated in Florida in 1998, Signature engaged in various real estate ventures in south Walton County. Messrs. Smith and Batur, who each own half of Signature's stock, are its only directors and officers: Mr. Batur is Signature's president and treasurer, Mr. Smith its vice president and secretary. Pursuant to section 607.1435, Florida Statutes (2002), Mr. Smith petitioned for appointment of a provisional corporate director, alleging he had to bear "the financial and time burdens associated with the management and operation of the Company as a result of Batur's de facto abandonment of the Company."
A week later, Mr. Batur sued in turn. In addition to moving for appointment of a custodian for Signature pendente lite, under section 607.1431(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and seeking an inspection of Signature's records, under section 607.1604, Florida Statutes (2002), Mr. Batur sought an accounting and dissolution of the corporation pursuant to subsections 607.1430(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (2002), alleging that Mr. Smith had breached fiduciary duties in converting corporate property to his own use. The trial court consolidated the cases, appointed a custodian pendente lite, and ordered the custodian to make all corporate records available to Mr. Batur.
In due course, Mr. Batur filed a verified, corrected, third amended complaint (complaint) that included a demand for corporate action under section 607.07401(2), Florida Statutes (2002), and stated various derivative claims. In particular,4 the complaint alleges that Signature was the rightful owner of a penthouse condominium, Unit B-1107 at the Majestic Sun Condominiums in Destin, but that Mr. Smith executed a deed on December 26, 2001, conveying title to Unit B-1107, then worth $1,100,000.00, to Coastal Builders of NW Florida, Inc., (Coastal), the very day Coastal conveyed Unit B-1107 to appellee South Walton, a limited liability company of which Mr. Smith is the managing member. In this way, Count VI alleges, Mr. Smith converted the penthouse to his own use in "knowing, willful, [and] intentional. . . disregard" of Signature's rights, and the rights of Mr. Batur.
Count VIII alleges that "by actual or constructive fraud, misrepresentations, abuse of confidence, unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, deceit, sham conveyance, breach of fiduciary duties, theft, or other questionable means," Mr. Smith and South Walton obtained title to Unit B-1107 in the name of South Walton; that they continue inequitably to withhold the title from Signature; and that they will be unjustly enriched, if Signature does not recover title. Count VIII seeks imposition of a constructive trust, and a declaration that South Walton holds title to Unit B-1107 solely as trustee for Signature, possessing "no other right, title or interest thereto."
Count IX states Mr. Batur's shareholder derivative claim for quiet title as to Unit B-1107 against Mr. Smith, South Walton, Sandpiper and First National. Among other things, Count IX alleges, South Walton and Sandpiper once gave First National, without Signature's or Mr. Batur's consent, a million-dollar mortgage on Unit B-1107.5 Count IX proceeds on the theory that, by co-signing the mortgage, Sandpiper necessarily implied it had an interest of some kind in Unit B-1107. Count IX asks for a declaration that Sandpiper has, in fact, no interest in Unit B-1107, recorded or otherwise, and seeks to remove any cloud on the title attributable to First National's mortgage.
Supplementing its initial order of appointment and conferring broad powers on the custodian, the trial court entered an order pursuant to section 607.1432, Florida Statutes (2002), that provided,6 in pertinent part:
On May 20, 2003, the custodian submitted an eight-page written report of his investigation "set[ting] forth the investigation undertaken and the decisions or lack of a decision reached by the Custodian at this time."
Although the original custodian's report explained (in a narrative written in the third person) that the custodian had not completed his investigation,7 the report recounted that he had looked into several of the derivative claims8 and, with respect to Unit B-1107 at the Majestic Sun Condominiums, specifically reported the following:
The custodian requested, and was granted, an additional 30 days to complete his investigation, and submitted a two-page follow-up report, on July 8, 2003. He reported no further investigation, but did report that he had reached a "global" settlement with Mr. Smith on five issues:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sojitz Am. Capital Corp. v. Kaufman
...The Florida Court of Appeals similarly concluded that a mixed standard of review is appropriate. Batur v. Signature Properties of Northwest Fla., Inc., 903 So.2d 985, 994–95 (Fla.App.2005). It is well settled that mixed questions of fact and law are subject to plenary review by this court. ......
-
Sojitz Am. Capital Corp. v. Kaufman
...The Florida Court of Appeals similarly concluded that a mixed standard of review is appropriate. Batur v. Signature Properties of Northwest Fla., Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 994-95 (Fla. App. 2005). It is well settled that mixed questions of fact and law are subject to plenary review by this cour......
-
Stephens v. McGarrity
...OCGA § 14-2-101 et seq., enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1070, § 1. 14. (Emphasis supplied.) 15. See Batur v. Signature Properties. of Northwest Florida, 903 So.2d 985, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 16. OCGA § 14-2-744 (2003 ed.), vol. 12, p. 189. 17. 47 N.Y.2d 619, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994 (......
-
Burgess ex rel. BancorpSouth, Inc. v. Patterson
...Florida Court of Appeals similarly concluded that a mixed standard of review is appropriate. Batur v. Signature Properties of Northwest Fla., Inc., 903 So.2d 985, 994–95 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005).Id. at 572.¶ 29. Based on persuasive authority from Wisconsin and Florida, the Appellate Court dep......
-
Dover judicata: how much should Florida courts be influenced by Delaware corporate law decisions?
...by one of a competing group of potential acquirers is inevitable). (38) Batur v. Signature Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 994 n. 18 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2005) (involving the interpretation of Florida's derivative action Stuart R. Cohn is the John H. & Mary Lou Dasbur......
-
The derivative action report: more trouble than it's worth?
...151 Wash. 2d at 912. (70) Klein, 2004 WL 302292 at *16. (71) DeMoya, 559 So. 2d at 645. In Batur v. Signature Prop. of N.W. Fla., Inc., 903 So. 2d 985, 992 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2005) (the appellate court noted without comment that an evidentiary hearing was held regarding the reviewer's (72) Le......