Florida Discount Centers, Inc. v. Antinori, 39128

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BOYD; ERVIN
• Citation: Florida Discount Centers, Inc. v. Antinori, 232 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1970)
• Decision Date: 25 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 39128,39128
• Parties: Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,881 FLORIDA DISCOUNT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul ANTINORI, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents. FLORIDA DISCOUNT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, By Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller; Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, and Broward Williams, State Treasurer, as and constituting the Florida Securities Commission, Respondents.

Page 17

232 So.2d 17

Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,881

FLORIDA DISCOUNT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul ANTINORI, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents.

FLORIDA DISCOUNT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, By Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller; Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, and Broward Williams, State Treasurer, as and constituting the Florida Securities Commission, Respondents.

No. 39128.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 25, 1970.

Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Second District.

T. Truett Ott, of Hardee, Ott & Hamilton, William R. McCown and Robert H. Carlton, Tampa, for petitioners.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Milton J. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Gen. Counsel for Div. of Securities, Comptroller of Fla., for respondents.

BOYD, Justice.

These consolidated cases are before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District. ¹ That Court has certified to us that its decision passes on a question of great public interest, stating:

"Under the facts disclosed by the record, the trial judge held that the scheme followed by the appellants in this case constituted a violation of the securities law and of the statute forbidding pyramid clubs. We do not find that these questions have been passed upon previously under similar circumstances and believe that the business methods involved may be employed in other districts within the state, conceivably with conflicting interpretations of the underlying law. Additionally, this court is not agreed as to the interpretation of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.]."

The trial court held the retrial merchandising plan to be a security and lottery and restrained Florida Discount Centers, Inc., from further sales thereunder. On appeal the District Court affirmed. The District Court described the plan of operation as follows:

"Purchase at a cost of $320 of either a sewing machine and accessories or a set of aluminum cookware, both said to be 'nationally advertised' at a price in excess of $300, but either of which is purchased by appellant for less than $70, makes one a 'founder' eligible to earn $60 upon recruitment of each founder subsequently persuaded. When the maximum of 3000 'founders' have joined, or sooner if the appellant were to deem it practicable, a 'discount' store would be opened, capital for the venture coming from a portion of the money...