CEES VAN DEN BOOM, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
YLB INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Shareholders of Florida Palms, Inc. appeal the trial court's appointment of a custodian pendente lite to manage the company during litigation over alleged misappropriation of funds and property. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and no error in the custodian appointment or the decision not to require a bond.
The appointment of the custodian was proper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to require a bond. Section 607.1432 gives the circuit court discretionary authority to require a bond, and there was no evidence of abuse of that discretion.
[1] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's order appointing a custodian pendente lite when the appellant fails to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, thu…
[2] Appellate courts presume the correctness of trial court findings and orders, placing the burden on the appellant to provide an adequate record to support any claims of er…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the findings and orders of the trial court come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of bringing an adequate record to support the appeal”
Establishes the standard of review and burden of proof on appeal; explains why the court could not review the evidentiary basis for the appointment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCees van den Boom and Corrine Nuenburg, principals of Tree Group, Inc., owned one-third of Florida Palms, Inc., a real estate development company. YLB…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Cees van den Boom and Corrine Nuenburg appeal the nonfinal order entered by the trial court appointing a custodian pendente lite for Florida Palms, Inc. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellants are the principals in Tree Group, Inc., which is a one-third owner of Florida Palms, Inc. Appellees, YLB Investment, Inc. (YLB) and Ram Real Estate Investment, Inc. (RAM), are also each one-third owners of Florida Palms, Inc. The primary purpose of Florida Palms, Inc., is the development of a real estate project known as Florida Palms.
Appellants operated the project until disharmony amongst the owners arose. The disharmony resulted in litigation when YLB and Ram sued the appellants to recover misappropriated money and property. Appel-lees moved the trial court to appoint a custodian pendente lite. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion, appointed the custodian, and charged him with the task of managing Florida Palm, Inc., and safeguarding its assets. The trial court did not require a bond of the custodian.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in appointing the custodian pen-dente lite. Essentially, they contend that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the necessary burden of proof and to support the trial court’s findings of fact. They also argue that the trial court erred in not requiring a bond of the custodian. However, appellants have failed to provide us with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing regarding the appointment of the custodian thereby precluding review of any claim of error pertaining to the evidence. In this regard, the findings and orders of the trial court come to this court with a presumption of correctness and the appellant has the burden of bringing an adequate record to support the appeal. Wright v. Wright, 431 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The appellants’ failure to do so in the instant case mandates affirmance.
We also find no error with regard to the trial court’s failure to require the custodian to post a bond. The custodian was appointed pursuant to section 607.1432, Florida Statutes (1995), which does not mandate a bond but instead, provides that the circuit court “may” require the custodian to post a bond. There is no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Enters., Inc. v. Foodtech Hialeah, Inc., 777 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…bsence of a transcript or stipulated statement, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion and the presumption of correctness which attaches to the lower court’s order of dismissal must remain intact. See van den Boom v. YLB Inv., Inc., 687 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of dismissal. Affirmed. JORGENSON, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, SHEVIN, SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ. concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), provides…
-
Baez v. Padron, 715 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…te review; indeed, this rudimentary principle is inseparably connected to and well grounded in appellate review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(e); see also Seal Prods, v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Van Den Boom v. YLB Invs., Inc., 687 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Graham v. Lomar Indus., 583 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McNair v. Pavlakos/McNair Dev. Co., 576 So. 2d 933, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, we cannot re…
-
Perez v. State, 709 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…been preserved for review because defense counsel failed to renew his objection after the jury was charged. We disagree; it was sufficient to request the instruction. The issue was dismissed and the court’s position clearly stated. Hettick v. State, 687 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (involving failure to give conspiracy to sell as lesser-included offense of trafficking). The state also argues that the error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. However, it is per se reversible error…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. Huretta Moss Wright, 431 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)