From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. Chang

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 31, 1993
622 So. 2d 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

No. 92-1207.

July 6, 1993. Rehearing Denied August 31, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, James C. Henderson, J.

Perse Ginsberg and Friedman, Baur, Miller Webner and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami, for appellants.

Sack Gladstein and Harlan M. Gladstein, Miami Beach, Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe and John R. Hargrove and Kent Brown, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.


Wen Chang, Arnold Goldman, and Aaron Goldman formed RCD Structures, Inc., with each acquiring one share of par value stock. This action commenced eight years later in the circuit court on Wen Chang's complaint for an accounting, to set aside the improper issuance of stock by Arnold and Aaron Goldman, and monetary compensation for the alleged dilution of his shareholder interest. Later the parties agreed to binding arbitration.

After a hearing, the arbitrators found, among other things, that the Goldmans had issued new and additional shares to themselves without notice to Chang and as a result had diluted his interest in the corporation. By the arbitration award, Chang's beneficial interest was restored to 33 1/3% "with a value of . . . ($28,245.00), plus interest calculated through December 31, 1990 . . . for a total valuation of . . . ($60,445.00)." The trial court requested the arbitrators to clarify "whether [they] intended to enter a damage award, and if so, against which parties. . . ." The arbitrators responded: a) they did not intend to enter a damage award, and b) they had computed only the value of Chang's interest in the capital stock as of June 30, 1980. Nevertheless, the trial court entered a judgment awarding the plaintiff $64,552.30 including prejudgment interest, from which this appeal is brought. We reverse.

Where the arbitration panel responded to the trial court that it intended only to fix the plaintiff's percentage of ownership in the small corporation, but did not intend to award damages, the trial court was without power, authority, or jurisdiction to enter an award of damages. See Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami, 598 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (court will never undertake to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment in accordance with the arbitration award.


Summaries of

Goldman v. Chang

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 31, 1993
622 So. 2d 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Goldman v. Chang

Case Details

Full title:AARON GOLDMAN, ARNOLD GOLDMAN, AND RCD STRUCTURES, INC., APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 31, 1993

Citations

622 So. 2d 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Florida Power v. City, Casselberry

Valuation of a claim or valuation of assets is an arbitrable issue. See City of Paducah v. Kentucky Util.…

Avatar v. N.C.J. Investment

We also reject Avatar's claim that it would have been proper for the trial court to expand upon the…