Peacock v. Merrill, No. 1:2005cv00377 - Document 701 (S.D. Ala. 2010)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT entered that this matter came before the Court for a jury trial with the undersigned judge presiding. At the close of the Plaintiffs case, the Court granted Defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs claims (as asserted in the Second Amended Complaint) for intentional interference with business relationships (Count Three), breach of fiduciary duty (Count Four) and oppression of a minority shareholder (Count Seven). At the close of all the evidence, the Cour t granted Plaintiffs motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to Defendants counterclaim for slander of title. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c), the jury rendered an advisory verdict with respect to the issues presented in Plaintiffs declaratory judgment claim (Count One) and rendered a verdict on Plaintiffs claims for conversion (Counts Two), civil conspiracy (Count Five) and money had and received (Count Six). The jury has rendered its verdict, and the Court has adopted the jurys advisory verdict. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: pltf's request for a judgment declaring that she "was and is the owner of fifteen percent (15%) interest in the Floragon Companies, " entitled to distributions, profits and rights of ownership is DENIED. Pltf is awarded nothing and this action is dismissed on the merits, with costs taxed in accordance with 28 USC 1920 and Local Rule 54.1.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 3/10/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Verdict) (mca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peacock v. Merrill Doc. 701 Att. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LINDA PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) BURNEY H. MERRILL, et al. Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. O5-0 il77-CB-C ) ) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND VERDICT FORM 1. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Marion Uter had a 15% ownership interest (the 150 shares of stock at issue) in the Fforagon companies in March 2002? Yes No lf you answered yes to question 1, go to question 2. lf you answered no to question 1, skip the remaining questions and sign and date this form. 2. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Linda Peacock acquired Marion Uter's 15 o/o ownership interest (the 150 shares of stock at issue) in the Floragon companies in March 2002? Yes No Dockets.Justia.com If you answer no question 2, skip the remaining questions and sign and date this form. 3. a. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Burney Merrill is liable for conversion of Peacock's 15o/o interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No b. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Collier Merrill is liable for conversion of Peacock's 15o/o interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No c. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Willis Merrill is liable for conversion of Peacock's 15o/o interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No 4. a. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Burney Merrill is liable for conspiracy to convert Peacock's 15% interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No b. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Collier Merrill is liable for conspiracy to convert Peacock's 15o/o interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No c. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Willis Merrill is liable for conspiracy to convert Peacock's 15o/o interest in the Floragon companies? Yes No lf you answered yes to any paft of questions 3 or 4, then answer question 5. lf not, skip question 5 and go to question 6. 5. a. What was the date of the conversion? b. What was the greatest value of the interest of FFP, Inc., FFPM, Inc. and Floragon Holding Co., lnc. from the date of the conversion to trial? 15o/o c. lf you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Peacock suffered mental anguish, what amount of damages do you award for mental anguish? d. lf you find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages should be awarded, what amount of punitive damages do you award? 6. a. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Burney Merrill is liable for money had and received? Yes No b. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Collier Merrill is liable for money had and received? Yes No c. Are you reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Willis Merrill is liable for money had and received? Yes No lf you answered yes to any part of question 6, then answer question 7. lf not, skip question 7 and sign and date this form. 7. a. What is the amount of money did the Merrills receive that rightfully belongs to Peacock? (Please specify the amount.) b. What is the date and/or dates that the money was received by the Merrills should have been turned over to Peacock? AmounUAmounts Date/Dates SO SAY WE ALL. oor"o,?l[ol[o FILED IN OPEN COURT THIS ]D!} DAY OF MARCH, 2010. CI{ARLES R. DIARD, JR., CLERK By: s\"0 -*; h\.*w v Deputy Clerk {-dtl okf,w FOREPERSON
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
