The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXVI
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

Chapter 617
CORPORATIONS NOT FOR PROFIT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 617.0834

617.0834 Officers and directors of certain corporations and associations not for profit; immunity from civil liability.—

(1) An officer or director of a nonprofit organization recognized under s. 501(c)(3) or s. 501(c)(4) or s. 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or of an agricultural or a horticultural organization recognized under s. 501(c)(5), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is not personally liable for monetary damages to any person for any statement, vote, decision, or failure to take an action, regarding organizational management or policy by an officer or director, unless:

(a) The officer or director breached or failed to perform his or her duties as an officer or director; and

(b) The officer’s or director’s breach of, or failure to perform, his or her duties constitutes:

1. A violation of the criminal law, unless the officer or director had reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was lawful or had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. A judgment or other final adjudication against an officer or director in any criminal proceeding for violation of the criminal law estops that officer or director from contesting the fact that his or her breach, or failure to perform, constitutes a violation of the criminal law, but does not estop the officer or director from establishing that he or she had reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was lawful or had no reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was unlawful;

2. A transaction from which the officer or director derived an improper personal benefit, directly or indirectly; or

3. Recklessness or an act or omission that was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term:

(a) “Recklessness” means the acting, or omission to act, in conscious disregard of a risk:

1. Known, or so obvious that it should have been known, to the officer or director; and

2. Known to the officer or director, or so obvious that it should have been known, to be so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow from such action or omission.

(b) “Director” means a person who serves as a director, trustee, or member of the governing board of an organization.

(c) “Officer” means a person who serves as an officer without compensation except reimbursement for actual expenses incurred or to be incurred.

History.—s. 54, ch. 90-179; s. 92, ch. 97-102; s. 33, ch. 2009-205.

F.S. 617.0834 on Google Scholar

F.S. 617.0834 on Casetext

Amendments to 617.0834

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 617.0834

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 617.0834.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

COLLADO, v. BAROUKH, FNC, LLC, LLC,, 226 So. 3d 924 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 617.0834, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

RAPHAEL v. M. SILVERMAN, M. I. Ba- a, 22 So. 3d 837 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The individual directors filed a motion to dismiss, citing sections 607.0881(1) and 617.0834(1), Florida . . . See §§ 607.0831(l)(b)2., and 617.0834(l)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE, INC. Jr. v. KEY COLONY NO. CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. INC. a k a, 510 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . Defendants specifically rely on section 617.0834 of the Florida Statutes which holds that officers and . . . In addition, section 617.0834, a state statute, cannot be applied to bar Plaintiffs’ federal cause of . . . Section 617.0834 does not protect against willful violations of rights protected by the Fair Housing . . . Act. 617.0834(l)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (stating that the statute’s immunity does not apply where the . . .

BERG, v. WAGNER,, 935 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . arguing Berg’s claims against them were barred as a consequence of the immunity afforded them by section 617.0834 . . . of the individual directors cannot be sustained on the grounds of the immunity afforded by section 617.0834 . . . Section 617.0834, Florida Statutes, provides that directors are not personally liable for "any statement . . .

ACCARDI, v. HILLSBORO SHORES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., 944 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See §§ 617.0831, 617.0834(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Munder v. . . . directors from behind the immunity shield, despite the protections afforded by sections 617.0831 and 617.0834 . . .

SONNY BOY, L. L. C. v. ASNANI,, 879 So. 2d 25 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Similarly, section 617.0834(1), Florida Statutes (2002) and section 607.0831(1), Florida Statutes (2002 . . . Section 617.0834(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in part: (1) An officer or director of a nonprofit . . . Both section 617.0834(1) and section 607.0831(1) limit personal liability of directors of non-profit . . . Section 718.303(1) is in conflict with section 617.0834(1) and 607.0831(1). . . .

FOX, v. PROFESSIONAL WRECKER OPERATORS OF FLORIDA, INC., 801 So. 2d 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . argues that directors who meet these standards enjoy immunity from civil liability pursuant to section 617.0834 . . . Fox specifically cites section 617.0834(1) in support of her argument that Counts III, Y, VII, IX, and . . . PWOF asserts that in the absence of any allegations by Fox that PWOF comes within the ambit of section 617.0834 . . . Section 607.0831, which is analogous to section 617.0834, essentially provides that directors are immune . . .

PERLOW, v. Ed GOLDBERG, 700 So. 2d 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 617.0834(1), Fla. Stat.(1995); § 607.0831(1), Fla. Stat.(1995); § 718.303(l)(d), Fla. . . . Section 617.0834(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in part: An officer or director of a nonprofit . . .

LANDRUM, v. JOHN DOE PIT DIGGER a a A. S. a F. L. II,, 696 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . plaintiff could amend the complaint should it become apparent that Marv Silvern had violated section 617.0834 . . .

BRIN, v. FUCHS, 688 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 617.0834, Fla. Stat. (1994). . . .