Owens v. Blitch, 82-2574
| Decision Date | 07 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2574,82-2574 |
| Parties | W.J. OWENS and Aletha Owens, his wife, Appellants, v. Thomas Jefferson BLITCH, III, and Jeritza Garcia Blitch, his wife, and Gulf Citrus, Inc., jointly and severally, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas E. Baynes, Jr., of Peterson, Myers, Craig, Crews, Brandon & Mann, P.A., Lake Wales, for appellants.
Lee S. Damsker of Maney & Damsker, Tampa, for appellees, the Blitches.
W.J. Owens and his wife, Aletha, appeal from a final judgment awarding Thomas and Jeritza Blitch damages arising from the misappropriation of funds of Gulf Citrus, Inc.
Gulf Citrus, Inc., holds title to a citrus grove in Hillsborough County. Mr. Owens and Mrs. Blitch each own fifty percent of the shares in Gulf Citrus. Mr. Blitch took responsibility for negotiating the purchase of the grove in 1971. These three and Mrs. Owens all served as directors of Gulf Citrus.
By 1974 the relationship between the Blitches and Owenses had considerably deteriorated. In 1977 the Blitches brought suit against Gulf Citrus and the Owenses in a two-count complaint. Count one sought a dissolution of Gulf Citrus and liquidation of its assets. Count two was an action for damages for misappropriation of the funds of Gulf Citrus. A receiver was appointed for Gulf Citrus. The Owenses answered and cross-claimed against Gulf Citrus for payment of promissory notes owed them by the corporation.
After a nonjury trial, count one, the request to dissolve Gulf Citrus, was denied by the trial court. As to count two the trial court determined that Mr. and Mrs. Owens were guilty of "fraud, misappropriation of funds, washing the assets of Gulf Citrus, Inc., unfairness and imposition." The court further found that over a seven- year period, the Owenses failed to account for $221,250 worth of citrus fruit, which rightfully belonged to the Blitches and Owenses in equal shares. The court awarded the Blitches a judgment for $110,625 against the Owenses. The trial judge further determined that the Owenses had completely personalized the corporation and assumed its alter-ego. On that basis the court denied their cross-claim against Gulf Citrus, as it would be "tantamount to ... filing a claim against themselves."
Although a number of issues have been raised in this complicated appeal, we find only one has merit.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their cross-claim, which sought recovery against Gulf Citrus on promissory notes for cash advances and caretaking services. They point out that Gulf Citrus, in its answer to the cross-claim, admitted the debts on several of the notes issued to the Owenses. Furthermore, appellee Thomas Blitch also admitted that the corporation owed certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American First Federal v. Lake Forest Park
...belatedly purchased and affixed." Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd. 578 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991), see also Owens v. Blitch, 443 So.2d 140, 141 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) ("Nothing in Florida law would deny enforceability of promissory notes merely because documentary stamps have been bel......
-
Silber v. Cn'R Industries of Jacksonville, Inc.
...law would deny enforceability of promissory notes merely because documentary stamps have been belatedly affixed." Owens v. Blitch, 443 So.2d 140 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). But once the tax has been paid and the documentary stamps affixed, however belatedly, the note becomes enforceable according to......
-
Blitch v. Owens
...he possessed that authority and affirm. A final judgment involving these parties was appealed to this court in 1983. Owens v. Blitch, 443 So.2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In that appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's denial of count one of the Blitches' complaint which sought to dissol......
-
Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd.
...that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed. Owens v. Blitch, 443 So.2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See Silber v. Cn'R Indus., 526 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA For this reason, the order granting the guarantor's motion for in......