Alario v. MillerAlario v. Miller
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Boardman, Hobson, Ryder
Appellants, Charles A. Alario and Syndicated Cinemas, Inc. (Syndicаted), appeal a final judgment rendered in favor of appellees, Fred and Monica Miller, in the sum of $8,900. We reverse.
The threshold question for our determination is whether appellees have a cause of action in their own right or whether their cause of action is derived from the corporation‘s right to bring the action. It is the body of the comрlaint which determines whether the injury is direct as to the stockholder and the cause of action individual to him or is indirect as to the stockhоlder and the cause of action derivative from the corporation. 13 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 5912 (rev. ed. 1970). We have carefully examined the record and have concluded that the gravamen of appellees’ action, that is the nature of the injuries alleged and the wrongs sought to be remedied, is a stockholder‘s derivative action and not an individual action.1See Gadd v. Pearson, 351 F. Supp. 895 (M.D.Fla. 1972).
There is a clear and necessary distinction between an individual action and a derivative one. The general rule is stаted in 19 Am.Jur.2d Corporations § 528 (1965).
A stockholder‘s derivative action is an action brought by one or more stockholders of a corporation to enforce a corporate right or to prevent or remedy a wrong to the corporation in cases where the corporаtion, because it is controlled by the wrongdoers or for other reasons, fails and refuses to take appropriate action for its own protection. An action brought by a stockholder is derivative if the gravamen of the complaint is injury to the corporation or to the whole body of its stock or property and not injury to the plaintiff‘s individual interest as a stockholder.
This court in Citizens National Bank v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) held that:
A Florida court has defined a derivative suit as an action in which a stockholder seeks to enforce a right of action existing in the corporation. See James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell, Fla.App. 1962, 148 So.2d 36. Conversely, a direct action, or аs some prefer, an individual action, is a suit by a stockholder to enforce a right of action existing in him.
.....
What these definitions attempt to convey is that a stockholder may bring a suit in his own right to redress an injury sustained directly by him, and which is separate and distinct from that sustained by other stockholdеrs. If, however, the injury is primarily against the corporation, or the stockholders generally, then the cause of action is in the corporation and the individual‘s right to bring it is derived from the corporation.
Citizens National Bank, supra, at 56. If the damages are only indirectly sustained by the stockholder as a result of injury to the corporation, the stockholder does not have a cause of action as an individual. See 13 W. Fletcher, Cyclopediа of the Law of Private Corporations §§ 5911, 5924, 5926, 5928 (rev. ed. 1970).
The action is not to establish a personal right. Stockholders are permitted to sue ex necessitate rei, and although by the record the сorporation may be made a party defendant, the stockholder bringing the action is in fact its representative. Otherwise than in name the action is by the corporation, and if relief be obtained it belongs, not to the stockholder bringing the action, but to the corpоration. The cause of action belongs to the corporation and not to the stockholders individually or collectively, and hence the decree ordinarily must award relief to the corporation rather than to the actual plaintiff.
13 W. Fletcher, Cycloрedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 5953 (rev. ed. 1970).
The corollary of these principles of law is that in a derivative actiоn the corporation on behalf of which the stockholders sue is an indispensable party, and the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicаte the rights of that corporation in its absence as a party, as was the case here.
The corporation is a necеssary defendant. In other words, the corporation on behalf of which plaintiffs sue must be made a party defendant so that a decrеe may appropriately give the corporation the fruit of any recovery by the plaintiffs. The corporation is not merеly a proper party, but is an essential, indispensable party, and the failure to make the corporation a party is not a mere defect of parties but leaves the stockholder without a cause of action and the court without jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)
13 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 5997 (rev. ed. 1970). See 19 Am.Jur.2d Corporations § 572 (1965). It follows that entry of final judgment in favor of appellees in the case before us is contrary to law and constitutes reversible error.
With due respect to the trial judge the issue of the lack of an indispensable pаrty was not raised in the trial court nor did either party argue the point on this appeal. Nevertheless, this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal, and we do so sua sponte. See Martinez v. Balbin, 76 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1954); McAdoo v. Moses, 101 Fla. 936, 132 So. 638 (1931); Kephart v. Pickens, 271 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed without prejudice to appellees to institute а derivative action.
REVERSED.
HOBSON and RYDER, JJ., concur.