The core issue you skipped over in your first reply is in my original question. I'm aware of Florida law on Corporations being represented by an attorney, as I thought was clear. What I asked in my second question, was a follow up to the issue asked in the first.
"Is it possible for the shareholder to now pursue litigation Pro Se, as the recipient of that ababandoned, intangible tort claim, since the company has been dissolved? Or is that asset only attainable by an action filed by the company through counsel?"
The question is DEFIINITION of ASSETS and HOW they SURVIVE or don't, AFTER a corporation no longer exists.
1. The Tort Action is an asset.
2. The Tort Action was abandoned by the Trustee.
3. The shareholder "individually" received the Tort Action as compensation for debt the corporation owed, as part of its settling the debt.
4. Why can't that Tort action now be considered "divested" from the corporate possession, and pass through to the individual, as any tangible property would do?
5. And if it can, then why cannot that shareholder bring an action "individually" as the new holder of that asset?
The only answer I can think of to deny such a scenario, is that such an "asset" DIES with the corporation. But I can't find any precedent to prove that. So what's the answer?
They went to me, the sole shareholder.
Once the dissolution occurs, the tort claims and other asset similarly abandoned in the BK belongs to you individually. You would be able to bring the claim individually as successor to the corporation. In bringing the suit you would not need to use an attorney because it is an individual claim not a corporate claim.
Just reply to me via the "CONTINUE CONVERSATION" or "REPLY" button with the questions you have as I receive no compensation for my efforts for the lowest two ratings.
Please keep in mind that I am trying to help you understand and resolve your situation. I don't make the laws, I am just reporting or interpreting them, so the outcome may not be what you had hoped for.
If this answer is responsive to your question, please accept it by giving a three stars/faces or higher . That is how we are compensated. I would also be appreciated if you provided feed back on your view of the answer. Finally, if the answer was especially helpful you can provide a bonus. If I can be of further assistance or you have other questions in the future you can ask for me and reach me at this site.
This communication is not intended as legal advice. A local attorney should always be consulted for legal advice. No client/attorney relationship is intended or created by this communication
Thank you, XXXXX XXXXX there any case law in support of this, or in the absence thereof, a Statute or something that would dismiss the argument does NOT follow Perry v. Shaw, 13 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1943), whereby: "A corporation adminsitratively dissolved continues its corporate existence but may not carry on any business except that necessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs under §607.1405 adn notify claimants under §607.1406"?
I had a judge determine the definition of this "includes the collectioon of assets, the disposal of properties, discharging liabilities and taking related actions, which may include 'bringing or defending legal proceedings associated with winding up or liquidation.' (citing) Allied roofing Indus., Inc., v. Venegas, 862 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Florida Statutes §(NNN) NNN-NNNN3) and §607.1405(1)).
Continuiing, the Judge added: "An administratively dissolved corporation therefore has the capacity to sue provided the suit is ncessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs. Selepro, Inc. v. Church, 17 So. 3d 1267 (Fla 4th DCA 2009).
Closing, I was hit over the head with Corp. law "101" when the Judge cited "a corporation, unlike an individual, may not appear in court in "proper person' and represent itself. Neither may a pleading be signed by a coprorate officer who is not a licensed attorney at law." Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) citing Nicholson Supply CCo., Inc., v. First federal Savings & Loan Assoc. of Hardee Cnty, 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966).
I was then blessed with a "defective" complaint can be "cured" by the later appearanceof an attorney for the corporation. Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y valores, 476 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
I can assume this maxes out your usual legal questions, but as I said earlier, if the above is to be accepted (contrary to your observation that I conclude is correct), then a distinct bias (and prejudice) is being applied to cherry picking what defines an asset, and whether it can NOT be transferred as any other hard or chattel asset could be. Which, absent this bias and prejudice, doesn't make sense.
Would love to know someone else has blazed this trail. If there is no other option available, such as a MOTION TO RECONSDIER with the Circuit Court, then I will appeal. Is a Motion to reconsider plausible? Or is this order final from what I have described, and needs to go to an Appeal?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).