OCEAN CRUISE LINES, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GREENAGE ASSOCIATIONS, INC., SHIPPING & GENERAL, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS OCEAN CRUISE LINES, INC., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed that Ocean Cruise Lines was liable as a successor to a judgment debtor based on fraudulent transfer of assets, but reversed the award of attorney's fees because the successor was not yet a judgment debtor when the underlying proceedings were brought.
A corporation may be held liable as a successor to a judgment debtor when assets are transferred in a fraudulent transfer, even absent proof of a de facto merger.
[1] Attorney's fees under Florida Statutes Section 57.115(1) may not be awarded against a successor corporation in execution proceedings until the successor is determined to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOcean Cruise Lines transferred assets to Greenage Associations, Inc., which was formerly known as Ocean Cruise Lines, Inc. Greenage sought to hold Oce…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Asset Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s final judgment determining that appellant was liable to appellee as a successor to the judgment debt-or in this case. While we do not find that the elements of a de facto merger between the appellant and the judgment debtor were proved, there was evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the transfer of assets from the judgment debtor to the appellant corporation met the tests for a fraudulent transfer. See Perrott v. Frankie, 605 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA1992). This case was tried under an order which determined that it was appellant’s burden to prove it was not liable, a ruling which was not challenged in this court because it was conceded by appellant at trial. We do not decide whether this was the correct placement of the burden of proof, but given this allocation the trial court must be affirmed.
However, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees to appellees. Section 57.115(1), Florida Statutes (1991) permits the award of attorney’s fees against a judgment debtor in connection with the execution on a judgment. Until the conclusion of the proceedings determining that appellant was liable, it was not a judgment debtor, and the underlying proceedings were not brought “in execution” on the judgment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.