You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Tourist Channel, Inc. v. Namey

Citations: 568 So. 2d 543; 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8186; 1990 WL 160707Docket: Nos. 89-1255, 89-1332

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 25, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

An appellate court reviewed an order appointing a receiver pendente lite for two corporations, The Tourist Channel, Inc. and Specialty Broadcasting Corp., which are in dispute over a low power FCC television license. The order restricts certain stockholders and officers from interfering with corporate operations and mandates the delivery of specific documents to the receiver, including stock certificates issued by the corporations. The court clarified that a receiver cannot claim property not belonging to the corporation. While affirming the trial court's order, the appellate court quashed the requirement for individuals James R. Harper, Jr., Daniel L. Deyton, Charles S. Namey, and Richard E. Namey, along with their representatives, to deliver stock certificates to the receiver. The decision was affirmed in part and quashed in part, with Judges DAUKSCH, COBB, and PETERSON concurring.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appointment of Receiver Pendente Lite

Application: The appellate court reviewed and upheld the trial court's decision to appoint a receiver pendente lite to manage the corporations involved in the dispute.

Reasoning: An appellate court reviewed an order appointing a receiver pendente lite for two corporations, The Tourist Channel, Inc. and Specialty Broadcasting Corp., which are in dispute over a low power FCC television license.

Limits on Receiver's Authority

Application: The court clarified that the receiver appointed cannot claim property that does not belong to the corporation.

Reasoning: The court clarified that a receiver cannot claim property not belonging to the corporation.

Partial Affirmation and Quashing of Lower Court's Order

Application: The appellate court affirmed the order in part while quashing it in part, indicating a nuanced agreement with the trial court's decision.

Reasoning: The decision was affirmed in part and quashed in part, with Judges DAUKSCH, COBB, and PETERSON concurring.

Quashing of Specific Document Delivery Requirement

Application: The appellate court quashed the requirement for specific individuals to deliver stock certificates to the receiver, indicating a limitation on the receiver's authority over personal property.

Reasoning: While affirming the trial court's order, the appellate court quashed the requirement for individuals James R. Harper, Jr., Daniel L. Deyton, Charles S. Namey, and Richard E. Namey, along with their representatives, to deliver stock certificates to the receiver.

Restrictions on Stockholders and Officers

Application: The order imposed by the trial court restricts certain stockholders and officers from interfering with the operations of the corporations during the pendency of the receivership.

Reasoning: The order restricts certain stockholders and officers from interfering with corporate operations and mandates the delivery of specific documents to the receiver, including stock certificates issued by the corporations.