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?