Case ID: so2d_805/html/1110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James E. SACKETT and Frederick James Sackett, as foreign personal representative of the estate of Vivian Lucy Rainwater Sackett (deceased), Appellants, v. Ernest W. SHAHID, individually; E & M Land Investors, Ltd.; Margaret E. Shahid, individually; and Shoreline Realty of Destin, Inc., n/k/a Shahid, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
    No. 1D01-1328.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 6, 2002.
    Gene D. Brown, Tallahassee, and John T. Brown, Fort Walton Beach, for appellants.
    Steven B. Bauman of Smith, Grimsley, Bauman, Pinkerton, Petermann, Shaw & Grinsted, Fort Walton Beach, for appel-lees.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court erroneously dismissed with prejudice their amended proceeding supplementary complaint on grounds that it had sought to raise claims beyond the scope of this court’s remand in Sackett v. Shahid, 768 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We agree.

Appellees conceded at oral argument that, although presented by appellants in their original proceeding supplementary complaint, the issues set forth in the amended complaint were never reached by the trial court in the original proceedings. The issues set forth in the amended complaint concern an overall fraudulent transfer of assets in violation of Chapter 726 of the Florida Statutes, by Ernest W. Shahid in liquidating substantially all of the corporate cash and assets of Shoreline Realty of Destín, Inc. prior to the sale of the corporation to FBS Acquisitions, Inc.

Contrary to the position taken by the trial court, we conclude that the scope of this court’s remand in Sackett was not confined solely to the issue of whether the 1995 sale of Shoreline Realty to FBS Acquisitions constituted a fraudulent transfer under section 726.105(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995). We, therefore, reverse the final judgment dismissing with prejudice appellants’ amended proceeding supplementary complaint and direct the trial court on remand to consider the issues raised in the amended complaint.

WOLF, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.