Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, HALKEY-ROBERTS
| Decision Date | 12 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-03735,HALKEY-ROBERTS,93-03735 |
| Citation | 641 So.2d 445 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1737 CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Glenn H. MACKAL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert R. Vawter, Jr., of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
George E. Nader of Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
Halkey-Roberts Corporation (HRC) appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of its former president, Glenn H. Mackal. We reverse.
HRC is a manufacturer of valves for inflatable products and medical equipment. Hanson Industries has wholly owned HRC since 1987. Mackal was originally hired as an engineer in 1966 when Kidde Corporation owned HRC. In 1972, he became president of HRC, a position he held until he was terminated in 1989.
On August 1, 1991, HRC filed a three-count complaint, charging that Mackal had repeatedly used corporate funds to further his personal, political, and religious interests. The complaint asserted claims for: (I) breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty; (II) breach of the fiduciary duty of due care; and (III) constructive fraud. Mackal answered and asserted affirmative defenses that he had acted within his authority as president and that HRC had consented to or ratified all of his actions. He later was permitted to amend his answer to assert the additional affirmative defense of the running of the statute of limitations. On September 22, 1993, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mackal based on his affirmative defenses of authority and the statute of limitations.
The deposition testimony of Leonard Riccardo, Mackal's immediate superior on the corporate ladder, precludes summary judgment based on the defense that Mackal had authority for his actions. Kidde Corporation was HRC's parent company during the majority of the time when Mackal allegedly made improper expenditures of HRC funds. Riccardo testified that Kidde Corporation had a formal corporate policy which applied to Mackal and prohibited the use of company funds, personnel, or property for the personal benefit of employees. He further testified as to specific expenditures set forth in the complaint as being beyond Mackal's authority and in violation of company policy. Since genuine issues of fact exist as to this defense, the granting of summary judgment was error. See Crandall v. Southwest Fla. Blood Bank, Inc., 581 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
In addressing this issue, it is first necessary to identify the causes of action set forth in the complaint and the applicable statute of limitations as to each. Counts I and II are actions for breach of fiduciary duty which is an intentional tort. See Allerton v. State Dep't of Ins., 635 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). As such, the four-year statute of limitations applies. Sec. 95.11(3)(o), Fla.Stat. (1991). The discovery rule found in section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1991), 1 does not apply to either of these counts.
Count III is an action for constructive fraud.
"Constructive fraud is simply a term applied to a great variety of transactions * * * which equity regards as wrongful, to which it attributes the same or similar effects as those which follow from actual fraud, and for which it gives the same or similar relief as that granted in cases of real fraud," etc. Pomeroy's Eq.Jur. (4th Ed.) Sec. 992.
Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243, 244 (Fla.1920). As a recognized species of fraud, constructive fraud is controlled by section 95.11(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1991), a four-year limitations period, and the discovery rule of section 95.031(2) applies. The affidavit of John M. Heijmans, a vice-president of another Hanson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chira
...familiar claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of care, and breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. See, e.g., Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445 (Fla.App.1994). Banco Latino International v. Gomez Lopez, 95 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1335 n. 9 (S.D.Fla. 2000). Constructive fraud is simp......
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...so as to urge application of the continuing torts doctrine and preclude summary judgment.” 803 So.2d 856;see Halkey–Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“The question of whether [Defendants'] actions constituted continuing torts precludes the granting of summary j......
-
Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
...197 So.3d 1243, 1244-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; Pearson v. Ford Motor Co., 694 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ; Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ; Spadaro v. City of Miramar, 855 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ; Laney v. American Equity Inv. Life Ins. ......
-
Banco Latino Intern. v. Gomez Lopez
...familiar claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of care and breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. See, e.g., Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445 (Fla. App.1994). 10. Defendant Falchi asserts that he cannot be held liable for breaching a duty of loyalty or care to BLI, because ......
-
Fraud
...fraud, and for which it gives the same or similar relief as that granted in cases of real fraud, … Source Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). §8:20.1.3 Elements of Cause of Action — 3rd DCA Constructive fraud occurs when a duty under a confidential or fidu......
-
Business litigation
...Nuisance. [ Baker v. Hickman , 969 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).]; • Breach of Fiduciary Duty. [ Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal , 641 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).] §4:13 Statutes of Repose A statute of repose is a time limit after which a claim cannot be brought. Unlike a stat......
-
Business & commercial cases
...result of attorney’s self-dealing). 5. Intentional Tort: Breach of fiduciary duty is an intentional tort. Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, in Palafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Cassel , 825 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), corrected by , 854 So.2d......