Appellate Materials: PITCO IND INC vs MALLOY, R J

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

R.J. Malloy,

Appellant,
v. . Case No. 2016 AP 005514 L/
Pitco Ind Inc., Lower Case No.: 2016 SC 2316 SC

Appellee.

OPINION

The pro se Appellant appeals ihe county court’s $1,626 Final Judgment in favor of the
Appellee, whereby Judge Denkin awarded the Appellee $1,401.21 in attorney’s fees and $225 in
costs. The Appellant raises four grounds on appeal. In the case below, Judge Denkin entered the
Final Judgment, following a small claims jury trial. The Appellant failed to provide a transcript.
It is the Appellant’s burden to produce a copy of the transcript of the proceedings below. See
Barnett Bank v. Applegate, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

On appeal, the Appellant raises four grounds: 1) that the county court erred in not
enjoining an essential party to the suit, 2) that the county court erred in ruling that the Appellant
was the correct party of interest; 3) that Section 617.0604, Florida Statutes, prohibits the personal
liability of an officer or director of a non-profit corporation for the corporation’s debts; and 4)
that the county court erred in not hearing the motion to vacate.

The Court addresses each ground in turn. As to Ground 1, the Appellant argues that he,
individually, was the incorrect party to the lawsuit. Appellant states that he is the executive
director of a Florida nonprofit 501(c)(3) charity. He argues that the materials supplied by the
Appellee inured to the benefit of this corporation. Absent a transcript, there is no error apparent

from the face of the record as to this claim.

Filed 05/15/2017 02:57 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FLAs to Ground 2, the Appellant argues that he, individually, cannot be an essential party to
the case. Ground 2 is essentially the same argument raised in ground one and similarly lacks
merit as there is no evidence apparent from the face of the record that the County Court erred in
this regard.

As to Ground 3, the Appellant argues that Section 617.0604, Florida Statutes prohibits

the personal liability o of al an 1 officer or director of a non- n-profit corporation, “Appellant states that
“the record of the county court clearly shows Malloy to be a volunteer member of a non-profit
corporation and acting as it’s [sic] Executive Director”. There is no documentation included in
the record on appeal provided to this Court to substantiate that claim and there is no error
apparent from the face of the record.

As to Ground 4, the Appellant contends that the County Court erred in not hearing his
“Motion to Vacate Judgment and Rehear”. However, this claim is clearly refuted by the record
on appeal, which shows that the County Court entered an “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion
for Rehearing”, wherein the County Court denied said Motion “[u]pon review of the court file
and consideration of Defendant’s motion”. There is no absolute right to a hearing on a Motion to
Vacate Judgment or Motion for Rehearing.

AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida this

Ls day of May, 2017.
\ <<

( VY ]/ .
Ttedieecch £7 orgy.»

frederick P. Mercurio
Circuit Judge

Filed 05/15/2017 02:57 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL

tee toe RAs Sirah neato mA oe Na aoe attr a ees MAE en Fah ae Retna et at oe aN A Bt RI MI He A AAs Athy Amp I A ANU Ane enn mit amen ety mae Rumimanumus fantteAik: aaNet te 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing order has been

furnished by U.S. Mail as follows on this [h day of May 2017.

oes en RF-Ma oye