Arturo A. MUNDER and 444 Inverrary Corp., Appellants,
v.
CIRCLE ONE CONDOMINIUM, INC., the Circle Villas Condominium Association, Inc., both Florida not-for-profit corporations, and the Circle Property Owners Association, Inc., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Anthony S. Paetro, Cohen & Paetro, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Charles N. Tetunic, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
*145 LETTS, Judge.
A condominium developer, in both his corporate and individual capacity, appeals a final judgment rendered in favor of a condominium association by reason of fire damage to the uninsured clubhouse recreation center. We affirm the corporate judgment but reverse the finding of individual liability.
The breach of fiduciary duty upon which the trial judge based the personal liability consisted of the developer's failure to renew a fire insurance policy on the clubhouse.[1] Clearly, the development corporation had the obligation under the association's bylaws to maintain the insurance and pay for it. The developer corporation had not created a board of directors as required under the bylaws and had retained unto itself full control of the association's duties which included the requirement to purchase the insurance. As a consequence, we have no quarrel with the judgment as it pertains to the corporate developer. However, the personal judgment against the president and sole stockholder of that corporation is another matter.
The main body of corporate law is to the effect that directors, officers and stockholders are not liable for corporate acts simply by reason of their official relation to the corporation. See Cottle v. Storer Communication, Inc.,
The developer corporation simply failed to maintain and pay for the fire insurance. Such a failure though an obvious wrong, was not, without more, sufficient to subject the president/sole stockholder to personal liability absent some basis for piercing the corporate veil. No such basis has been alleged in the case at bar.
Several courts have grappled with similar problems. In Olympian West Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Kramer,
We find no reversible error in the remaining points on appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
ANSTEAD, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] The project was in trouble, the clubhouse unused and unusable. The developer made the monetary decision not to renew the insurance. This is not a case where the premium was overlooked.
[2] Judge Schwartz distinguished Weiss in Kramer, but we are not sure we agree that the distinction should make a difference.
