FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 16, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 04 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 7- cv -8 03 34 -KAM ALAN GU THARTZ ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el lant ver su s PARK CENTRE W EST CORP., 46 85 HAVERHILL, INC., SHINING STAR RANCH, INC., BARNETT GUTHA RTZ, JANET BARRY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 10 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el lantAlan Gutha rtz su edhi s fa th er, s is te r, an d t hr ee co rp or at e en ti ti es

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 20 1( a) s eek in g ade cl arat io n tha t h e is th e ri gh tfu l o wne r of at le as t a p orti on of t he th ree c or po rat e d efen da nt s. Hav in g re vi ewedth e rec or d a nd de ci si on be lo w, we fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n ei th er erro rs of f

actno r law and , th us , affi rm . Alan Gutha rtz all eg es th at , ten y ears pri or to co m m en ci ng th is laws ui t (a nd on e y ear b efo re h er d eath) , hi s m ot he r m ai le d h im th ree “ st oc k p owe rs ” fo r sh ares of own ers hi p i n thr ee co m

pa ni es own edby his pa ren ts . Acco rd in g t o t he 1 ap pe ll an t, h e p la cedth e st oc k p owe rs ina fi rep ro of bo x wh ere h e le ft the m

fora de cad e, no t ap pr eci at in g the ir s ig ni fic an ce. Aro un d t he ti m e th athi s fa th er at te m pt edto ev ic t h im

fro m th e fam il y ’s New Yorkho m e, th e ap pe ll an t, cl ai m in g to be a sh areh ol de r, at te m pt edto in sp ectth e rec or ds of the th ree c or po rat e de fen da nt s. Th e d efen da nt s, ap pe ll ee o n t hi s ap pe al , di sp ut edap pe ll an t’s al le ga ti on s an d a ccu se d h im of a lt eri ng ol d c or

po rat e d oc um en ts th atwere l eftin th e fam il y

ho m e. Furth erm or e, de fen da nt s p res en te d e vi de nc e th at , eve n i f ap pe ll an t’s al le ga ti on s wer e true , th ey wou ldno t h av e eff

ect eda tr an sf

er o f A “stock pow er” is a power of attorne y

that allows the cur

rent owne r of a

reg istered 1 security to transfe r that owne rship to another. The testimony showed that stock powe rs traditionally

acc ompany

security cer tificates whe n there is a prese nt or possible future ne ed to re
assign owner ship, such as in the conte x t of loan collate ralization. The share s in dispute were uncer tified. 2co rp or at e o wne rs hi p u nd er Fl or id a la w or e nt it le d app el lantto acce ss of t he

co rp or at e rec or ds . The co urt b el ow ru le d fo r th e d efen da nt s, fi nd in g t ha t ap pe ll an t’s fa th er an d m ot he r own edth e co rp or at io ns as t en an ts by the en ti rety —m ak in g aun il at eral tra ns fer o f sh ares im po ss ib le —an d t ha t ap pe ll an t’s fathe r la ck edan y

do na ti ve in te ntto effec tu at e a tran sf er o f th e sh ares . Furth erm or e, th e co urt fo un d tha t, ev entak in g app el lant ’s all eg at io ns as t ru e, th e pu rp orte d tran sa ct io n d idno t co nf orm to th e requi rem en ts of F lo rid a co m m on law orth e Uni fo rm

Co m m erci al Co de (“ UCC”) . On ap pe al , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s o f law de no vo , andit s fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r. Mit ch el l v. Hi ll sb or ou gh Co un ty , 46 8 F .3d12 76 , 12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The d is tri ctco urt m ad e two cle ar fi nd in gs of f actinth is cas e: (1) th atap pe ll an t’s fa th er an d m ot he r own edth e co rp or at io ns indi sp ut e as te na nt s b y

th e en ti rety ; an d (2 ) th at , eve n i f on e as su m edap pe ll an t’s s to ry to be tru e, ap pe ll an t’s fath er d idno t h av e th e d on at iv e in te ntrequi redto tra ns fer own ers hi p o f th e as se ts to hi s s on . The ap pe ll an t ar gu es th atth e fo rm er de te rm in at io n i s cl earl y

erro ne ou s b ecau se th e d is pu te d s to ckpo wers co nt ai n de si gn at io ns th atth e p aren t-s ig na to rie s o wne d t he sh ares as t en an ts inco m m on . Afte r rev ie win g the reco rd , we det erm in e th ere was a weal th of i nf orm at io n i n the reco rdsupp orti ng bo th of t he di st ric t ju dg e’s factua l d et erm in at io ns an d v ery li tt le 3ev id en ce s up po rti ng th e o pp os it e co nc lu si on s. As th e d efen da nt s co rrec tl y po in t ou t i n the ir b rie f, whe n the ev id en ce b efo re the fact fin de r fai rly supp orts each of two po ss ib le co nc lu si on s, the fact fin de r’s ch oi ce b etweenth e two wil l n otbe

“ cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Y el lo w Ca b C

o. , 33 8 U.S. 3 38 , 34 2, 7 0 S . Ct. 17 7, 1 79 (19 49 ). Here, ap pe ll an t h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth e ev id en ce ev en pe rm it s a s eco ndvi ew. The se un di sturbe d fi nd in gs of f actdi ct at e a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e de fen da nt s. Ev enif we a ccep t ap pe ll an t’s ar gu m en t tha t s to ckpo wers canco nv ey own ers hi p o f un cert ifi edsh ares , app el lant ’s m ot he r was witho utpo wer t o un il at eral ly tran sf

er o wne rs hi p o f th os e sh ares . Se e Sit ome r v. Or la n , 66 0 S o. 2 d 11 11 , 11 13 -1 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 ). Furth erm or e, reg ard le ss of the natu re o f th e o wne rs hi p o f th e sh ares at i ss ue , th e tr an sf er i n que st io n d oe s n otco nf orm to th e requi rem en ts of t he Uni fo rm Co m m erci al Co de fortra ns ferr in g u nr eg is te red st oc k. Se e F LA . S T A T . §§ 67 8.1 02 1( 1) (l) , 10 71 (1 )(b ) (requi rin g t ha t “ in st ru ct io ns ” di rect in g the tra ns fer o f un cert ifi edsh ares be m ad e to th e is su er); F LA . S T A T . § 67 8.3 01 1( 2) (a)– (b ) (d efi ni ng “ de li ve ry ” fo r un cert ifi edsec ur it ie s b y reg is tra ti on with the co rp or at io n) . Suc h re qu ire m en ts ex is t t o p rev en t s itua ti on s ex act ly lik e th e o ne at b ar: he s ai d/ sh e sa idlaws ui ts wher e o ne pa rty ass ert s tha t a tran sf er was m ad e b as edon so m e d oc um en t n otrefl ect edinth e co rp or at e rec or ds . Thes e 4requi rem en ts ap pl y with e qu al for ce t o g ift s. Se e S ac ket t v. S

ha hi d, 72 2 S o. 2 d 27 3, 2 76 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 98 ). The di stric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w th atap pe ll an t’s m ot he r was witho ut po wer t o m ak e a u ni la te ral co nv ey an ce o f co rp or at e o wne rs hi p a nd , eve n h adsh e be en , th e fo rm

of t hi s co nv ey an ce d idno t ef fectan y su chtra ns fer wer e n ot erro ne ou s. Th eref

or e, th e jud gm en t b el ow i s af firm ed . AFFIRMED.

5