NANCY RAFFA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE DANIA BANK ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this wrongful conversion case, a jury returned a verdict awarding punitive damages without compensatory damages, which violates Florida law. The trial court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict, but the appellate court held this was erroneous because the jury's liability finding was supported by evidence, and remanded for a new trial to cure the defective verdict.
The directed verdict for defendant was erroneous because the jury's liability finding was supported by sufficient evidence. The punitive damages judgment cannot be reinstated because it violates the established rule that punitive damages require an underlying award of compensatory damages. The case must be remanded for a new trial to cure the improper verdict.
[1] Punitive damages require an underlying award of compensatory damages.
[2] A jury verdict awarding punitive damages without any compensatory damages is legally improper.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The law is well settled that punitive damages require an underlying award of compensatory damages.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that invalidates the jury's verdict of punitive damages without compensatory damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNancy Raffa sued Dania Bank for wrongful conversion of her car. The case was tried before a jury on conflicting evidence regarding compensatory and pu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wrongful Conversion cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Plaintiff/appellant sued appellee, a bank, for the wrongful conversion of plaintiff’s car. This is the second appearance of this controversy before this court. See Raffa v. Dania Bank, 321 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The case was tried on conflicting evidence before a jury on the claim of wrongful conversion and compensatory and punitive damages. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned the following verdict: “VERDICT
“WE, THE JURY, find for the Plaintiff, NANCY RAFFA, and assess her damages against the Defendant, THE DANIA BANK:
Compensatory SNONE_
Punitive $25000.00_
“SO SAY WE ALL.
“DATED this 7th day of March, 1978.
('Signature).
FOREMAN”
The defendant filed a motion for judgment in accordance with its prior motion for directed verdict and a separate motion for new trial based on an alleged impropriety in the verdict. The court initially entered final judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $25,000 punitive damages. Subsequently, the court reversed itself and granted the motion for judgment in favor of defendant in accordance with defendant’s prior motion for directed verdict. Final judgment was entered in favor of defendant against the plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was never ruled upon in view of the grant of the motion for directed verdict.
The law is well settled that punitive damages require an underlying award of compensatory damages. McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So. 2d 221 (1943); Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). A verdict which finds no compensatory damages whatsoever and punitive damages of $25,000 is within this prohibition. At trial neither plaintiff nor defendant asked to have this improper verdict corrected while the jury was still impaneled and might have done so. Also, no party asked for an instruction to the effect that punitive damages could not be assessed without at least a finding of some compensatory damages nor did any party ask for an instruction to the jury on nominal damages.
On appeal plaintiff/appellant seeks to have the $25,000 punitive damages judgment reinstated and the defendant seeks affirmance of the directed verdict eventually entered in its favor. It should be noted that the defendant’s directed verdict was not the result of the impropriety of the verdict. It was instead based on the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s proofs had been lacking.
We hold the directed verdict in favor of the defendant to be erroneous. The jury found in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability and there was evidence which, if believed, supported this verdict of liability. We thus reject defendant’s contention and find the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the issue of liability in favor of plaintiff. Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
We also cannot accept plaintiff/appellant’s position that the correct disposition of this matter is to reinstate the $25,000 punitive damages. Such a disposition would violate the established law previously stated to the effect that punitive damages may not be assessed without a finding of compensatory damages. We, therefore, cannot condone a judgment based on an improper and inconsistent verdict absent some showing that defendant waived the right to complain about the improper verdict. Since the defendant filed both a motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict (improperly granted by the trial court) and a motion for new trial based solely on the impropriety of the verdict there has been no waiver. The trial court never ruled upon the motion for new trial because a ruling was unnecessary in view of the action in granting the directed verdict. We do not find the absence of such a ruling to constitute a waiver of the motion for new trial on defendant’s part.
Based on the above, we hold the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict and entering judgment thereon. This judgment is vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the motion for new trial filed by the defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ault v. Lohr, 538 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1989)…rd of punitive damages without an award of nominal or compensatory damages. The district court concluded that the trial court properly granted a new trial since the issue of nominal damages had not been submitted to the jury. In Raffa v. Dania Bank, 372 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), the jury found for the plaintiff in a conversion action, assessed no compensatory damages, but awarded $25,000 in punitive damages. The Fourth District, citing Sonson, stated: “The law is well settled that puni [*456] tive damag…1 / 2
-
Am. Motorcycle Inst., Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…between that breach and the punitive damages award. We do not find that conclusion in Lassi-ter. Nor have other post-Lassiter decisions: Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Raffa v. Dania Bank, 372 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Flood v. Ware, 363 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied 372 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1979); and Sonson, v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 364 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla.1978). Lassiter merely resolved a pre-ex…
-
Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Curfman, 386 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ese and other issues including alleged actions by the Credit Union tending to affect Curfman’s credit standing. . Compare Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Flood v. Ware, 363 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Raffa v. Dania Bank, 372 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); and American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Sonson v. Nelson, 357 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Raffa v. The Dania Bank & Bruce Fletcher, 321 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)