Codomo v. Emanuel
| Citation | 91 So.2d 653 |
| Parties | Janet CODOMO, an impleaded defendant, Appellant, v. Obert EMANUEL, Victor Emanuel and Jack Edwards, trading and doing business as Emanuel Electric Co., Appellees, and Belfran, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Leonard Codomo, jointly and severally, Defendants, not parties to appeal. |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Rothenberg & Burris, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Irving Schulman, Miami Beach, for appellees.
February 17, 1955, final judgment was entered in Circuit Court of Dade County against Janet Codomo, Leonard Codomo, her husband, and Belfran, Inc., jointly and severally. This judgment was rendered following supplemental proceedings brought by appellees after an execution issued upon a prior judgment against Leonard Codomo and Belfran, Inc., was returned unsatisfied. Appellant was not a party defendant in the first suit. During the supplemental proceedings, on May 25, 1954, appellant testified as principal stockholder and officer of the corporate defendant. On appellees' petition a rule nisi was issued May 26, 1954, to show cause why Mrs. Codomo should not be impleaded as a party defendant, her assets impounded and for other relief. She was duly served with a copy of the rule the next day. On July 15, 1954, she was restrained from disposing of certain funds pending disposition of the cause. In his findings the Circuit Judge pointed out that she appeared by counsel in response to the rule, but filed no answer in opposition to petition that she be impleaded as party defendant.
The court found that the corporate defendant kept no minutes and held no meetings for the election of officers; as to manner the books were kept the testimony was evasive; there was commingling of accounts by defendants, one of whom was appellant's husband, and appellant was the principal stockholder. There was showing attempts to defraud or confuse creditors and large amounts were withdrawn from Belfran, Inc., and disbursed for various purposes. Appellant is charged with participating in all this. The court gave final judgment against defendants for $7,301.26, being balance due appellees and awarded commissioner's fee of $75. By subsequent order of May 12, 1955, he assessed $750 against appellant as fee for appellees' counsel. Janet Codomo has appealed from both the judgment and order. The other defendants have not appealed.
The points brought up for determination are: (1) whether or not Janet Codomo was accorded due process, as prerequisite to entering the final judgment against her February 17, 1955; (2) whether or not the trial court erred in awarding counsel's fees against Janet Codomo in the supplementary proceedings; (3) did the proof justify the court in piercing the corporate entity, Belfran, Inc., and then impose judgment upon Janet Codomo?
We do not think the first and third questions need exploring. While it is true that Janet Codomo was a silent partner, owned much of the stock in Belfran, Inc., and permitted the use of her funds in its transactions and manipulations, she must have known what was going on; at least she was charged with notice of it and cannot now contend that she was ignorant and was not accorded due process. As noted supra she was served with the rule nisi and appeared by counsel months before the judgment appealed from was entered. The question of charging her with counsel's fees for appellees in the supplementary proceedings presents a different question.
Appellees contend that the supplemental proceedings were part of the main cause, being an action collect a promissory note providing for reasonable attorneys' fees and being so, the supplementary fee is based on contract. The note was maed by Belfran, Inc., and was endorsed by Leonard Codomo. Janet Codomo was neither maker nor endorser of the note. She did not become a party until impleaded by the court in supplemental proceedings. The order impleading her found that she was an undisclosed principal for other defendants, that she owned most of the stock...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins State Bank v. Connolly
...Fraud or malice may modify the rule under circumstances. 14 Am.Jur. 38, Section 63. See also 15 Am.Jur. 552, Sec. 143. Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956). This exception has been narrowly interpreted, and seems limited to cases where the fraud or malice is "specific, certain and con......
-
Leitman v. Boone, 82-1517
...of Hampton v. Fairchild-Florida Construction Co., 341 So.2d 759 (Fla.1976); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968); Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956); Rader v. Recarey, 352 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, 277 So.2d 265 (Fla.1973); Stone v. Jeffre......
-
Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 95-3865
...U.S. 427, 82 S.Ct. 879, 8 L.Ed.2d 7 (1962); State ex rel. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v. Johnson, 118 So.2d 223 (Fla.1960); Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956); Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So.2d 684 (Fla.1954); Phoenix Indemn. Co. v. Union Finance Co., 54 So.2d 188 (Fla.1951); Dorner......
-
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
...Campbell v. Maze, 339 So.2d 202 (Fla.1976); Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, Employers Service Corp., 277 So.2d 265 (Fla.1973); Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956); State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668 This Court accordingly affirms the decision of the trial court......