Florida Statute 772.104 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 772
CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 772.104

772.104 Civil cause of action.—

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

(2) As an alternative to recovery under subsection (1), any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s. 772.103 due to sex trafficking or human trafficking shall have a cause of action for threefold the amount gained from the sex trafficking or human trafficking and in any such action is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200 and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

(3) In no event shall punitive damages be awarded under this section. 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 which was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court shall not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. Nothing under this section shall be interpreted as limiting any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under other provisions of law.

History.—s. 3, ch. 86-277; s. 1180, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-168.

F.S. 772.104 on Google Scholar

F.S. 772.104 on CourtListener

Amendments to 772.104

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 772.104

Total Results: 51

Rollins, Inc. v. Butland

951 So. 2d 860, 2006 WL 3686484

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2006 | Docket: 1280308

Cited 277 times | Published

817.41(6), Fla. Stat. (misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (Florida RICO). In addition, the Contract

Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc.

162 F.3d 1290, 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 244, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 31647, 1998 WL 886794

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 18, 1998 | Docket: 333717

Cited 255 times | Published

(“The legislature’s clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking

Terminix International Co. LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership

432 F.3d 1327, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 27766, 2005 WL 3445533

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 16, 2005 | Docket: 659297

Cited 123 times | Published

racketeering (ie., Florida RICO), Fla. Stat. § 772.104; criminal false advertising, Fla. Stat. § 817

Gordon Jones and Laura Jones v. John H. Childers and Talent Services, Inc.

18 F.3d 899, 40 Fed. R. Serv. 843, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6530, 1994 WL 91268

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 7, 1994 | Docket: 2167478

Cited 67 times | Published

predicate acts to create civil liability under § 772.104, which provides for treble damages for any person

Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger

646 F.3d 836, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14266, 2011 WL 2693967

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 13, 2011 | Docket: 638173

Cited 55 times | Published

fact and legal support pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.104(3). More specifically, we find that the issues

Bambu v. EI Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

881 So. 2d 565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2004 | Docket: 1465686

Cited 26 times | Published

products liability case under the provisions of section 772.104 of the Florida Statutes. That section provides

Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

336 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19264

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2004 | Docket: 1398453

Cited 25 times | Published

predicate act. (Transcript at 80). Florida Statute § 772.104 allows a person to bring a civil RICO claim if

Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.

941 F. Supp. 1567, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14792, 1996 WL 566888

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1996 | Docket: 2254170

Cited 17 times | Published

action under Florida's RICO statute, Fla.Stat. § 772.104 (1995). That statute reads, in pertinent part:

Ciaramello v. D'Ambra

613 So. 2d 1324, 1991 WL 494159

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1991 | Docket: 454052

Cited 13 times | Published

DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104, Florida Statutes, to be interpreted as authorizing

Boczar v. Manatee Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc.

731 F. Supp. 1042, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1788, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 321, 1989 WL 168998

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1990 | Docket: 1491465

Cited 13 times | Published

Antitrust Law, 8) violation of Florida Statute Section 772.104, 9) violation of Florida Statute Section 772

Spadaro v. City of Miramar

855 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25965

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 2012 | Docket: 65980581

Cited 11 times | Published

property. City Response at 27 (citing Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1)). However, the City Defendants only argue that

Small Business Administration v. Echevarria

864 F. Supp. 1254, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414, 1994 WL 515910

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 1994 | Docket: 1021855

Cited 11 times | Published

contractual relationship between the parties. Fla.Stat. § 772.104; see also Leisure Founders, Inc. v. CUC Int'l

Fixel v. Marsowicz (In Re Marsowicz)

120 B.R. 602, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 2234, 20 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1964

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Oct 23, 1990 | Docket: 1504469

Cited 11 times | Published

So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fla.Stat. Ann. § 772.104 (WEST 1990). This is the same standard of proof

Foreman v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.

568 So. 2d 531, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8166, 1990 WL 159673

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1990 | Docket: 533528

Cited 10 times | Published

attorney's fee award to a defendant pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm. Appellant

STUART L. STEIN, PA v. Miller Industries, Inc.

564 So. 2d 539, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4721, 1990 WL 91912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1990 | Docket: 1294412

Cited 9 times | Published

"any person" to pursue a civil theft claim to section 772.104 and elevated the standard of proof to the "clear

Ziccardi v. Strother

570 So. 2d 1319, 1990 WL 66204

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 1990 | Docket: 2307529

Cited 9 times | Published

civil damages based on alleged violations of section 772.104,[1] the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices

Bortell v. White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

2 So. 3d 1041, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 578, 2009 WL 187708

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 2009 | Docket: 1643721

Cited 8 times | Published

proximately caused by the RICO violations. Section 772.104(1) provides, "Any person who proves by clear

Capital Factors, Inc. v. General Plastics Corp. (In Re General Plastics Corp.)

170 B.R. 725, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1157

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | Filed: Mar 15, 1994 | Docket: 1110866

Cited 8 times | Published

(reversing denial of fees under similar provision of § 772.104 where no evidence presented that defendant did

Friedman v. LAUDERDALE MEDICAL EQUIP. SERVICE, INC.

591 So. 2d 328, 1992 WL 258

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1992 | Docket: 541397

Cited 7 times | Published

construing a similar attorney's fee provision in section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), the Third District

Garrison v. State

553 So. 2d 1377, 1989 WL 156226

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 1989 | Docket: 377907

Cited 7 times | Published

1969); 18 Am.Jur.2d Conversion §§ 117-121 (1985); § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (1987). Under the evidence presented

Remova Pool Fence Co. v. Roth

647 So. 2d 1022, 1994 WL 706302

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1994 | Docket: 437251

Cited 6 times | Published

made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the

McKenzie v. Betts

55 So. 3d 615, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1044, 2011 WL 309318

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2011 | Docket: 179748

Cited 5 times | Published

actions for certain criminal practices). See also § 772.104 (authorizing treble actual damages and entitling

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co.

314 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7171, 2004 WL 869369

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2004 | Docket: 2337975

Cited 5 times | Published

includes several predicate crimes named in section 772.104(1), Florida Statutes, and a "pattern of criminal

RLS BUS. VENTURES v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc.

784 So. 2d 1194, 2001 WL 356227

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 2001 | Docket: 1492606

Cited 5 times | Published

grounds: 1. a contract between the parties; 2. section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995); and 3. an offer of

Allstate Insurance v. Palterovich

653 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83803, 2009 WL 2731338

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2009 | Docket: 2289551

Cited 4 times | Published

Fla. Stat. § 772.11 (Count IX) and Fla. Stat. § 772.104 (Count X). 1. Fla. Stat. § 772.11 (Count IX)

COMPTECH INTERN. v. Milam Commerce Park

711 So. 2d 1255, 1998 WL 251087

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 1998 | Docket: 1337492

Cited 4 times | Published

action for civil theft (and, for that matter, section 772.104, Florida Statutes, the cause of action for

Bronson v. Bronson

685 So. 2d 994, 1997 WL 1703

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 1997 | Docket: 1414846

Cited 4 times | Published

Inc., 568 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990) and section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court erred

Coffey v. Evans Properties, Inc.

585 So. 2d 960, 1991 WL 147682

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 1991 | Docket: 1293640

Cited 4 times | Published

for the dismissed claims, without mentioning section 772.104 or any other statutory or contractual basis

Ace Pro Sound & Recording, LLC v. Albertson

512 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2007 WL 988867

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 2007 | Docket: 2146051

Cited 3 times | Published

Organizations Act (Florida's RICO Act), FLA. STAT. § 772.104.[3] *1262 Count 3 against Defendant Albertson

Skubal v. Cooley

650 So. 2d 169, 1995 WL 46556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1995 | Docket: 1702962

Cited 2 times | Published

identically worded attorney's fees provision of section 772.104). While section 57.105 requires a finding of

City of North Bay Village v. Cook

617 So. 2d 753, 1993 WL 116702

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1993 | Docket: 458021

Cited 2 times | Published

Strother, 570 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (section 772.104, enacted in 1986 to correct problems resulting

Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine

233 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 102 Fed. R. Serv. 810, 2017 WL 519066, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17492

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2017 | Docket: 64312591

Cited 1 times | Published

in the trial and appellate courts. Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1).

Pincus v. Speedpay, Inc.

161 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 2015 WL 5820808, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136254

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2015 | Docket: 64306834

Cited 1 times | Published

Criminal Procedures Act (“CRCPA”), Florida Statute § 772.104 (count seven) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Eagletech Communications, Inc. v. Bryn Mawr Investment Group, Inc.

79 So. 3d 855, 2012 WL 280242, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1346

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2012 | Docket: 60305390

Cited 1 times | Published

conspire to do so. § 772.103, Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 772.104(1) provides civil remedies for violations of

Rollins, Inc. v. Butland

932 So. 2d 1172, 2006 WL 1791705

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 2006 | Docket: 2451695

Cited 1 times | Published

817.41(6), Fla. Stat. (misleading advertising); § 772.104, Fla. Stat. (Florida RICO). In addition, the Contract

Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. Iberoamerican Electronics, S.R.L.

698 So. 2d 611, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9437, 1997 WL 476462

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 1997 | Docket: 64775502

Cited 1 times | Published

defendants to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989)). In Friedman v. Lauderdale

Haddad v. Cura

674 So. 2d 168, 1996 WL 228977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 8, 1996 | Docket: 1194946

Cited 1 times | Published

other things, to treble these damages under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1987). The trial court denied

Ciaramello v. D'Ambra

590 So. 2d 946

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 1991 | Docket: 1512625

Cited 1 times | Published

DCA 1990), holding similar language found in section 772.104, Florida Statutes, to be interpreted as authorizing

Smith v. Viragen, Inc.

902 So. 2d 187, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2470, 2005 WL 475412

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2005 | Docket: 64838386

Published

532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming fees under section 772.104 when the case was disposed of on the pleadings

Perlman v. Abel

881 So. 2d 1156, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11240, 2004 WL 1672392

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2004 | Docket: 64832484

Published

denial of attorney’s fees to appellants under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1995). Contrary to appellants’

Black v. Brown

812 So. 2d 581, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4315, 2002 WL 491860

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 2002 | Docket: 64813899

Published

plaintiff sued the defendant for civil theft. See § 772.104, Fla. Stat (1995). The trial court ruled that

Johnson v. Telesat Cablevision

162 F.3d 1290

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 18, 1998 | Docket: 767086

Published

(“The legislature’s clear intent in wording section 772.104 as it did was to discourage RICO claims lacking

Balas v. Ruzzo

703 So. 2d 1076, 1997 WL 629142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 1998 | Docket: 1704184

Published

criminal practices or racketeering pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes. The petitioners claim that

Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.

683 So. 2d 1175, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13141, 1996 WL 724293

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1996 | Docket: 64769476

Published

attorneys' fees pursuant to the note, guaranty and section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1993).

Hartford Insurance Co. v. Miller

681 So. 2d 301, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10293, 1996 WL 556840

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 2, 1996 | Docket: 64768225

Published

found that Miller was entitled to fees under section 772.104 and granted same, which order is the subject

Ivans v. McKid Ltd.

642 So. 2d 798, 1994 WL 497867

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 1994 | Docket: 64750879

Published

was without substantial fact or legal support.” § 772.104, Fla.Stat. (1993). Affirmed in part, reversed

In re Barrett Home Corp.

165 B.R. 50, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 398, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 241, 1994 WL 69595

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1994 | Docket: 65780741

Published

a pattern of criminal activity ... Fla.Stat. § 772.104 Civil cause of action. Provides that any person

Association of School Consultants, Inc. v. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc.

639 So. 2d 991, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 318, 1994 WL 19516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1994 | Docket: 64749674

Published

order denying attorney’s fees requested under section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1987), is whether the trial

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Toppino

611 So. 2d 560, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13638, 1992 WL 385470

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1992 | Docket: 64693234

Published

factual and legal support for appellee’s claim, see § 772.104, Fla.Stat. (1987), we *561affirm the trial court’s

Beck v. Olstein

588 So. 2d 317, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11048, 1991 WL 225488

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1991 | Docket: 64662717

Published

the defendants-appellees is reversed.3 . Section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989), entitles a defendant

Lawson v. Mulieri

578 So. 2d 823, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3785, 1991 WL 63773

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1991 | Docket: 64658337

Published

attorney’s fees to the Mulieris pursuant to section 772.104, Florida Statutes (1989). Before turning to