Wee Mac Corp. v. State by Dickinson
| Decision Date | 24 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1474,73--1474 |
| Parties | Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,167 WEE MAC CORPORATION, doing business as Commodity Options of Florida, a Florida corporation and Wesley J. Moffatt, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, By Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller, as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Arthur S. Clark, Jr., Miami, for appellants.
R. Lawrence De Frances, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
The appellants, the defendants in the trial court, appeal a final judgment finding that they sold commodity options in Florida in violation of the Florida Sale of Securities Law, Chapter 517, Fla.Stat. The trial court held that the defendants (1) had operated in violation of the law, (2) are permanently enjoined from selling any securities unless they are properly registered with the Florida Division of Securities, (3) are ordered to divest themselves of the proceeds of all sales made to two purchasers in Florida in contravention of the law, and (4) are subject to the right reserved by the court to order the appellants to divest themselves of the proceeds of other sales. Thereafter, the court directed the payment by the defendants of a fee for an accountant appointed by the court to audit their books.
On this appeal appellants contend (1) that the commodity options which they sold were not proved to be securities within the meaning of Chapter 517.02(1), Fla.Stat., (2) that the court was without authority to require the repayment to private investors of the purchase price of the alleged securities where the private investors were not parties to the suit, and (3) that the court improperly taxed as costs the fee of the court-appointed accountant.
There is ample evidence in this record to support the trial court's finding that the commodity options sold by the appellants are investment contracts. See Florida Discount Centers, Inc. v. Antinori, Fla.1970, 232 So.2d 17; Frye v. Taylor, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 835. The appellant has, with admirable candor, admitted in argument that these same contracts have been held to be investment contracts by the United States District Court, District of Nevada, in the case of In re Traders International, Ltd., case no. 7350, opinion filed January 30, 1974.
Appellant's second point presents error which calls for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Darby
...Inc., 617 P.2d 1334 (Okla.1980). State v. Buckeye Finance Corp., 54 Ohio St.2d 407, 377 N.E.2d 502 (1978), and Wee Mac Corporation v. State, 301 So.2d 101 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974), are not to the contrary. They disapproved of suits by securities law administrators for rescission of unlawful t......
-
Tinwood N.V. v. Sun Banks, Inc., 89-2281
...the absence of a joinder of the private investors, the court could not require repayment to such private investors. Wee Mac Corp. v. State, 301 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The directed verdict on this claim is affirmed. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Agents Failure to Disclose Secret Profit) U......
-
State ex rel. Day v. Southwest Mineral Energy, Inc., 54725
...and on occasion have confused the Administrator's right to recover with that of the individual investor. In the case of Wee Mac v. State, 301 So.2d 101 (Fla.App.1974), the per curiam opinion merely reversed the case without any citation of authorities or discussion of the Trial Court's orde......