PBF OF FORT MYERS v. D & K PARTNERSHIP
| Decision Date | 22 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-3591.,2D02-3591. |
| Citation | 890 So.2d 384 |
| Parties | PBF OF FORT MYERS, INC., Appellant, v. D & K PARTNERSHIP and Richard and Alison Ross, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Charles Coleman, Fort Myers, for Appellant.
Jeffrey D. Kottkamp of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., for Appellees, Richard E. Ross and Alison Ross.
Darrell Hill, Lehigh Acres, for Appellee, D & K Partnership.
PBF of Fort Myers, Inc., appeals from an order dismissing its counterclaim against the plaintiffs, Richard E. Ross, Alison D. Ross, and D & K Partnership (collectively referred to as the Rosses). The trial court dismissed the counterclaim because PBF had been administratively dissolved by the Florida Department of State for failure to file its annual report. We reverse because PBF was authorized by statute to pursue its counterclaim in order to wind up its business affairs.
In 1998, the Rosses initiated the underlying suit against Patty Fleishman d/b/a Studio Designs for breach of a lease agreement, which the parties entered into in 1993. Fleishman answered the complaint and filed a two-count counterclaim alleging fraud in the inducement with respect to the lease and breach of the lease by the plaintiffs. The trial court later granted Fleishman's motion to allow her to amend her answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim to include the entities PBF of Fort Myers, Inc., and Parkmeadows Furnishings as defendants and counterplaintiffs.
The Rosses moved to dismiss PBF from the counterclaim, arguing that PBF was administratively dissolved on September 22, 2000, for failure to file its annual report. Counsel for PBF conceded that PBF is no longer an active corporation. He asserted, however, that PBF had a right to wrap up its business affairs, which it was doing in pursuing its counterclaim. The trial court entered an order dismissing the counterclaim.
On appeal, PBF contends that because it is not pursuing recovery for a claim accruing after the dissolution of the corporation, but rather is collecting its assets, which is appropriate winding up activity, its counterclaim is permitted under sections 607.1405(1)(a) and 607.1421(3), Florida Statutes (2001). Section 607.1421, entitled, "Procedure for and effect of administrative dissolution," provides in subsection (3) that "[a] corporation administratively dissolved continues its corporate existence but may not carry on any business except that necessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs under s. 607.1405 and notify claimants under s. 607.1406." Section 607.1405(1)(a) similarly provides that a dissolved corporation may not carry on any business except that appropriate to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs, including "[c]ollecting its assets." The Rosses respond that the issue here is governed by section 607.1622(8), which prohibits a corporation that fails to file its annual report from maintaining or defending any action in any court of this state until such report is filed.
In Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court discussed the interplay between these sections and stated that if a corporation was administratively dissolved for failing to file its annual report, arguably "section 607.1622(8) would preclude an administratively dissolved corporation's suit on a cause of action accruing after its dissolution." (Emphasis added.) Our statement in Levine supports reversal here because the cause of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spa Creek Servs., LLC v. S.W. Cole, Inc.
...607.1501(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). Neither is winding up affairs. Selepro, Inc., 17 So.3d at 1270 (citing PBF of Fort Myers, Inc. v. D & K P'ship, 890 So.2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ).6 Accordingly, we reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of S.W. Cole and Jerry Cole on these i......
-
Callaway v. Hornbake
...RISES&names_filing_type=. 3. See Fla. Stat. § 607.1421(3); PBF of Fort Myers, Inc. v. D&K Partnership, et al., 890 So.2d 384, 385-86 (Fla. 2d DCA. 2004); Allied Roofing Industries, Inc. v. Venegas, 862 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also In re Bercu, 293 B.R. 806, 810 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. ......
-
Hock v. Triad Guaranty Ins. Corp.
...in original) (emphasis added).That holding was inconsistent with this court's earlier decision in PBF of Fort Myers, Inc. v. D & K Partnership, 890 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In PBF, we held that section 607.1622(8) did not prohibit a corporation that was dissolved for failing to file i......
-
Seay Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Locklin
...against the corporation in its corporate name").1 Construing the statutes together, the Second District, in PBF of Fort Myers, Inc. v. D & K P'ship, 890 So.2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing the trial court's order dismissing the corporation's counterclaim), held that an administratively ......