EQUICO LESSORS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NOVA MACHINERY CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER TURNAU AND STEPHEN MINIEA, 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.
Affirmed trial court's judgment denying recovery where both parties were defrauded by a third party in a phantom machinery sale-leaseback transaction, finding no fraud by defendants.
When both parties to a transaction are defrauded by a third party, neither party may recover against the other for fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, theft, or breach of contract.
[1] When both parties to a transaction are defrauded by a third party, neither party may maintain an action for fraud or related claims against the other party.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEquico Lessors financed a sale-leaseback of machinery that did not exist, having been defrauded by a third party. Nova Machinery Company and its princ…
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 Civil Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Both the appellant and appellee, Nova Machinery Company, Inc., were “bilked” by a third person, into a sale leaseback and financing of a phantom piece of machinery. After default on the loan and discovery that the machinery did not exist, the appellant brought an action against Nova and its principals seeking to recover money it lost in financing the phantom machinery, alleging causes of action sounding in fraud; civil conspiracy; unjust enrichment; civil theft; and breach of contract.
After trial, the trial court made many findings of fact, ultimately determining no fraud on the part of the defendants, that both parties were “bilked” by the third party and denied all recovery. Finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, we affirm. St. John v. Kuper, 489 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Cohen v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 433 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Coffee Pot Plaza Partnership v. Arrow Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., 412 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Parker v. Miracle Strip Boat and Motors Headquarters, Inc., 341 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Preston v. City National Bank of Miami, 294 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Blair v. Ramsey, 245 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); duPont v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Upchurch v. Barnes, 197 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murray Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Coffee POT Plaza P'ship v. Arrow AIR Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc., 412 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Cohen v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 433 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Upchurch v. Robbie Dean Barnes, 197 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Chuck ST. John v. Kuper, 489 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Ernice Shirley Weinkle Preston v. City Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 294 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Samuel Hallock duPONT, Jr. v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Parker v. Miracle Strip Boat & Motors Headquarters, Inc., 341 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Chalmers v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 245 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Blair v. Ramsey, 245 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)