Case Name: The JOHN MISKOFF FOUNDATION, INC., and Thomas W. Watson, and James O. Plinton, as Trustees, Appellants, v. Charles H. JOHNSON and George Palmer, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Wilmoth A. Miskoff, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-11-12
Citations: 588 So. 2d 675
Docket Number: No. 91-64
Parties: The JOHN MISKOFF FOUNDATION, INC., and Thomas W. Watson, and James O. Plinton, as Trustees, Appellants, v. Charles H. JOHNSON and George Palmer, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Wilmoth A. Miskoff, Appellees.
Judges: Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 588
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
The JOHN MISKOFF FOUNDATION, INC., and Thomas W. Watson, and James O. Plinton, as Trustees, Appellants, v. Charles H. JOHNSON and George Palmer, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Wilmoth A. Miskoff, Appellees.
No. 91-64.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 12, 1991.
Rafael de Armas, Orlando, for appellants.
Floyd Pearson Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh & Russomanno, and Charles H. Johnson, and Susan K. Labasky, Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellants, The John Miskoff Foundation, Thomas W. Watson and James 0. Plinton (Foundation), appeal a summary judgment in favor of appellees. We affirm.
The material issues of fact are not in controversy. A concatenation of events, involving the Foundation's bylaws, led to the removal of several trustees. The removed trustees, in turn, sued for damages and for reinstatement.
The trial court, based upon the Foundation's bylaws and the non-controverted facts, determined as a matter of law that the trustees were properly removed. Accordingly, the trial court acted well within its judicial demesne in entering summary judgment. See Holl v. Tolcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Levey v. Getelman, 408 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.