immunity and was not, therefore, liable for the injuries. The principle set forth in Smith has also been extended to those situations in which there is no formal lease agreement, but only an informal agreement to borrow the equipment. See Commercial Coatings of Northwest Fla., Inc. v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., 616 So.2d 960 (Fla.1993). Smith applies to this case only if one assumes the corporate resolution effectuated the transfer of beneficial ownership of the truck to BFI and BF Fla. then borrowed the truck for its daily operations. We cannot assume that, however, because the corporate resolution gave the president or vice president authority to transfer the assets only by executing a bill of sale or assignment. See Carothers v. Patton, 288 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)(<HOLDING>). Because there was no subsequent sale or
holding that transfer was not discipline because transfer neither altered salary nor fringe benefits holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court holding that where resolution merely authorizes corporate officers to transfer assets no transfer takes place until an assignment is perfected