DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN v. Alex Hofrichter

Zuckerman v. Hofrichter, 632 So. 2d 730 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: March 8, 1994
Docket: Nos. 92-2368, 92-1519
Judges: Nesbitt, Jorgenson and Cope
Citations: 632 So. 2d 730

Cited by 4 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

632 So.2d 730 (1994)

DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, P.A., Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, Individually, Appellants,

ALEX HOFRICHTER, P.A., f/k/a Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter, Individually, Appellees.

ALEX HOFRICHTER, P.A., f/k/a Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter, Individually, Appellants,

Donald S. ZUCKERMAN P.A., Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, Individually, Appellees.

Nos. 92-2368, 92-1519.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1994.

*731 Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., and Sharon Wolfe, Miami, for appellants/appellees Zuckerman, et al.

Wolpe, Leibowitz, Berger & Brotman and Steven R. Berger, Alex Hofrichter, Miami, for appellees/appellants Hofrichter, et al.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In Appeal No. 92-1519, Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman individually appeal an order determining that Alex Hofrichter, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter individually were entitled to an award of attorney's fees in a suit for a partnership accounting. As we view the record, the trial court made the award pursuant to, and correctly applied the standards in, A.J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey, 132 Fla. 602 , 182 So. 216 (1938) and Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 , 114 So. 548 (1927). We affirm.

In Appeal No. 92-2368, Alex Hofrichter, P.A., and Alex Hofrichter individually (collectively, "Hofrichter") appeal a related order which determined that Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., would be solely liable for the above-mentioned attorney's fee award. The order denied assessment of attorney's fees against Donald S. Zuckerman, individually, and Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A.

Hofrichter appeals the denial of an attorney's fee award against Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, individually. The October 1, 1992 order under review was entered by a successor judge, after a final judgment of accounting had been entered. The successor judge concluded that although the final judgment of accounting had been entered jointly and severally against Donald S. Zuckerman, Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., and Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., the predecessor judge had not pierced the corporate veil of Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. Recently, the final judgment of accounting was reviewed in this court. Another panel of this court concluded, in part, "Donald Zuckerman was properly held individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A... . ." Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the October 1, 1992 order is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

Appeal No. 92-1519 affirmed; Appeal No. 92-2368 reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(affirming fees award made under A.J. Richey and Wade, supra, in a suit for partnership accounting)

Larmoyeux v. Montgomery, 963 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
(in a suit for an accounting of a law partnership, party's award of attorney's fees affirmed where trial court properly applied Wade and Richey standard)

Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

Donald S. Zuckerman, Pa v. Alex Hofrichter, Pa676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Lipsig v. Ramlawi760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Hofrichter v. Zuckerman & Venditti710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Larmoyeux v. Montgomery963 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Most recent

Larmoyeux v. Montgomery963 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Lipsig v. Ramlawi760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Hofrichter v. Zuckerman & Venditti710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Donald S. Zuckerman, Pa v. Alex Hofrichter, Pa676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Wade v. Clower, 114 So. 548 (Fla. 1927)	75
	A. J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey, 182 So. 216 (Fla. 1938)	20
	Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list