David Peyton v. Eric K. Grant

Summary

This order grants Plaintiff David Peyton’s motion for summary judgment on Defendant Eric K. Grant’s counterclaims in a business dispute involving Nexxt Gen Corporation and related entities. The counterclaims alleged breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, tortious interference, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from alleged diversion of corporate business and assets.

Holdings

1. Peyton was entitled to summary judgment because Grant presented no competent evidence creating a genuine dispute that Peyton breached a fiduciary duty to Nexxt Gen or that Nexxt Gen suffered damages proximately caused by any breach.
2. Florida law treats corporate waste as a subset or theory of breach of fiduciary duty rather than an independent tort, and Grant's waste theory failed because the record did not show an expenditure without adequate consideration, a lack of rational corporate purpose, or damages.
3. The DLL Enterprises payments did not support conversion because they were authorized under the parties' joint stipulation, and Grant's objections that the payments lacked a contract or adequate consideration concerned possible fiduciary-duty or waste theories, not the unauthorized-act element of conversion.
4. Grant's unjust-enrichment counterclaim failed because he did not produce evidence that Nexxt Gen directly conferred a benefit on Peyton or NGVSAT that either accepted and retained.
5. Summary judgment was granted on the tortious-interference counterclaims because Grant conceded that Counts III and IV did not survive summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Peyton was entitled to summary judgment on Grant's breach-of-fiduciary-duty counterclaim based on alleged diversion of Nexxt Gen business, resources, and revenue.
2. Whether corporate waste is an independent tort under Florida law and, if not, whether the alleged conduct constituted waste or a breach of fiduciary duty supported by competent evidence.
3. Whether the authorized payments to DLL Enterprises could constitute conversion when Grant disputed their contractual basis and adequacy of consideration.
4. Whether Grant produced evidence that Nexxt Gen directly conferred and Peyton or NGVSAT accepted and retained a benefit sufficient to support unjust enrichment.
5. Whether Grant's tortious-interference counterclaims survived summary judgment after Grant conceded that they did not.

Disposition

other