civil theft claim in Florida

2022Allen Holmes, Inc. v. Jim Molter, Inc., 127 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Standafer v. Schaller, 726 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).

2013See Standafer v. Schaller, 726 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[T]he clear language of the statute appears to require more than that the defendant be the prevailing party because the failure of a plaintiff to prevail on a civil theft claim by clear and convincing evidence does not necessarily mean that the claim was without substantial fact or legal support.”).

2022Allen Holmes, Inc. v. Jim Molter, Inc., 127 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Standafer v. Schaller, 726 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).

2021After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant”); Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt, 66 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) 2 Because we agree with the trial court that the Receiver’s failure to prove damages was fatal to the remaining four counts that proceeded to trial (including Count Four, the civil theft claim), we need not determine whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict on that count in favor of the third-party defendants, for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the civil theft statute. 5 (reversi

2021After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant”); Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt, 66 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) 2 Because we agree with the trial court that the Receiver’s failure to prove damages was fatal to the remaining four counts that proceeded to trial (including Count Four, the civil theft claim), we need not determine whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict on that count in favor of the third-party defendants, for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the civil theft statute. 5 (reversi

2021After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant”); Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt, 66 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) 2 Because we agree with the trial court that the Receiver’s failure to prove damages was fatal to the remaining four counts that proceeded to trial (including Count Four, the civil theft claim), we need not determine whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict on that count in favor of the third-party defendants, for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the civil theft statute. 5 (reversi

2018Kass v. Kass, 560 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

2010Group, Inc. v. R & B Holding Co., 883 So.2d 867, 875-76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that trial court erred in granting directed verdict because defendant never paid the treble damage amount and did not suffer any harm from the premature filing of the civil theft claim).

2010See Tangerine Bay Co. v. Derby Road Invs., 664 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

2006See Fla. Desk, Inc. v. Mitchell Int'l, Inc., 817 So.2d 1059, 1060-61 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Escudero v. Hasbun, 689 So.2d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Capital Partners Inv.

2006See Fla. Desk, Inc. v. Mitchell Int'l, Inc., 817 So.2d 1059, 1060-61 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Escudero v. Hasbun, 689 So.2d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Capital Partners Inv.

2000In a similar situation, the Third District ruled in Arango v. Cainas, 666 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996): We decline to pass on the merits of the summary judgment entered on the civil theft claim as this order has not and could not be appealed because it is neither an appealable final order ... nor an appealable non-final order.

2000Where the property at issue is also the subject of a contract between the parties, a civil theft claim requires additional proof of "an intricate sophisticated scheme of deceit and theft." Trend Setter Villas of Deer Creek v. Villas on Green, 569 So.2d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

1997Citing to Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 1084, 1098 (S.D.Fla. 1992); Miles Plastering & Associates, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 573 So.2d 931, 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623, 624-25 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986), Escudero asserts that where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, a claim for civil theft will not lie absent a showing that the loss from the theft is separate and distinct from the loss flowing from the breach of contract.

1997See, e.g., Miles Plastering, 573 So.2d at 931-32 (finding no civil theft action will lie for action brought by subcontractor on construction project against general contractor for payment of services rendered); Rosen, 486 So.2d at 625-26 (finding no civil theft or conversion occurred where court determined that case did not involve situation where a party intentionally received a specifically identifiable sum of money knowing that he had no right to take it and who refused to return it; nor was it a case where a party refused to pay over to the demanding party a specific fund capable of separa

1997Citing to Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 1084, 1098 (S.D.Fla. 1992); Miles Plastering & Associates, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 573 So.2d 931, 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623, 624-25 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986), Escudero asserts that where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, a claim for civil theft will not lie absent a showing that the loss from the theft is separate and distinct from the loss flowing from the breach of contract.

1997Section 772.11 (1995) provides: The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim without substantial fact or legal support. .Economic losses are, "damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits— without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property.” Casa Clara Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244, 1246 (Fla.1993).

1997See, e.g., Miles Plastering, 573 So.2d at 931-32 (finding no civil theft action will lie for action brought by subcontractor on construction project against general contractor for payment of services rendered); Rosen, 486 So.2d at 625-26 (finding no civil theft or conversion occurred where court determined that case did not involve situation where a party intentionally received a specifically identifiable sum of money knowing that he had no right to take it and who refused to return it; nor was it a case where a party refused to pay over to the demanding party a specific fund capable of separa

1997Citing to Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 1084, 1098 (S.D.Fla. 1992); Miles Plastering & Associates, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 573 So.2d 931, 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623, 624-25 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986), Escudero asserts that where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, a claim for civil theft will not lie absent a showing that the loss from the theft is separate and distinct from the loss flowing from the breach of contract.

1997Compare Burke v. Napieracz, 674 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (the rule did not bar a civil theft claim because the underlying act did not arise out of a failure to perform the contract but arose from an affirmative act of theft independent from the contract).

1996Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1974); compare Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass'n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974), nor an appealable non-final order under Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a).

1992See Lewis v. Heartsong, Inc., 559 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

1988See Bill Rivers, 489 So.2d 1139 .

1988We find that there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's implied finding that these counts "were so inextricably intertwined that preparation of one count could not, as a practical matter, be separated from the preparation of the other count." Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).