Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shoreline Foundation, Inc. v. Brisk

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

June 26, 2019

SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., Appellant,
v.
Victor BRISK, Appellee.

Page 69

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 70

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. CACE 14-020494 (02), CACE 14-020793 (04).

         Steven H. Osber of Conrad & Scherer LLP, Fort Lauderdale and Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel, and Ashley P. Singrossi of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

         Jeffrey A. Rynor and Loren H. Cohen of Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellee.

          OPINION

         Klingensmith, J.

         Appellant Shoreline Foundation, Inc., ("Shoreline") appeals an Amended Final Judgment entered following a jury verdict

Page 71

in favor of appellee Victor Brisk. Brisk brought several claims against Shoreline, his former employer, but prevailed only on his count alleging breach of fiduciary duty stemming from what he claims was a joint venture with Shoreline to develop property in the Bahamas. Shoreline contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a joint venture existed, and also challenges the trial court’s order denying entitlement to attorneys’ fees under Florida’s Blue Sky Law.[1] We agree on both issues and reverse. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal without comment.

          In October 2003, one of Shoreline’s principals approached Brisk with an opportunity to invest in Hidden Hills, a townhome development in the Bahamas. Shoreline was developing Hidden Hills in conjunction with a Bahamian entity called P & P. Brisk was given the opportunity to purchase: (1) a 15% ownership interest in seven of the townhome units Shoreline would own; and (2) 15% ownership interest in the 50% of P & P’s shares in the Hidden Hills Project that Shoreline would own. The parties entered into a written agreement called a "Partial Assignment" that assigned Brisk the above ownership interests. Brisk was not a party to the Hidden Hills Contract between Shoreline and P & P, but the Partial Assignment established Brisk knew about the Hidden Hills Contract:

5. Acknowledgement. Brisk acknowledges that he is fully acquainted with the condominium project which is the subject of this agreement and that he will actively participate in the development of the project.

(Emphasis added).

         The record shows Brisk was indeed aware of the Hidden Hills Project’s status because he was employed by Shoreline as its Controller. There is no mention of Brisk’s duties or authority, nor is there any mention of a joint venture or partnership between Brisk and Shoreline contained in the Partial Assignment.[2]

         Over the next five years, Brisk continued to invest in the project, making contributions toward his share[3] totaling $219,600 while remaining employed as Shoreline’s Controller. However, Brisk never controlled the Hidden Hills Project, and never met with the P & P principals. According to the evidence, Brisk’s involvement in the project, aside from his financial investment, was limited to occasionally performing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.