GUILLERMO MENENDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BEECH ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Menendez appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claims against Beech Acceptance Corporation regarding competing security interests in an aircraft. The court affirmed, finding no evidence of fraud, conspiracy, civil theft, or breach of duty by Beech.
Menendez failed to establish any of the alleged causes of action. Beech owed no fiduciary duty to Menendez; there was no evidence of fraud, conspiracy, or knowledge by Beech of a scheme to subordinate Menendez's interest; there was no evidence supporting the civil theft claim; and the arm's length, competing business relationship precluded a duty of care supporting a negligence claim.
[1] A claim for a constructive trust requires facts supporting allegations of fraud, undue influence, or abuse of confidence.
[2] Conduct engaged in for legitimate business purposes, even if motivated by animosity or malice, does not constitute tortious interference with a contractual relationship.
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“No right to have a constructive trust imposed was established because no facts were adduced to support the allegations of fraud, undue influence, or abuse of confidence.”
Establishes that Menendez failed to prove the essential elements for a constructive trust claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMenendez held a chattel mortgage on an aircraft. Founders Financial Corporation also claimed a security interest in the same aircraft. In an earlier a…
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 Abuse Of Confidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
In a previous appearance of this case we affirmed a summary judgment finding that Founders Financial Corporation’s security interest in an aircraft had priority over Menendez’s chattel mortgage. Menendez v. Founders Fin. Corp., 496 So. 2d 251 (Fla.3d DCA 1986). On remand, with Founders no longer in the case, Menendez amended his complaint to add Beech as a defendant, alleging that its security interest in the aircraft was subordinated to Founders’ security interest because of Beech’s wrongful conduct. Having thoroughly examined the record, we again find no basis for disturbing the judgment.
No right to have a constructive trust imposed was established because no facts were adduced to support the allegations of fraud, undue influence, or abuse of confidence. Beech had no fiduciary duty to Menendez; in fact they each had competing financial interests to be protected, and in not vigorously protecting Menendez’s financial interest, Beech was effectively protecting its own interest. Such conduct engaged in for legitimate purposes, even if tinged with animosity and malice, does not give rise to a cause of action for interference with a contractual relationship. Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981).
Menendez claimed that Beech conspired with others to conceal facts which would have placed Menendez on notice of a threat to his security interest. There are no facts, however, tending to show that Beech knew of or participated in a scheme to render Menendez’s security interest subordinate to Founders’ interest. Some proof of knowledge of a conspiracy, and participation in it by the alleged tortfeasor, must be shown in order to survive a motion for summary judgment. Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert denied, 307 So. 2d 450 (1975).
Neither is there a scintilla of evidence that Beech knowingly obtained, used, or endeavored to obtain or use property of Menendez, or that Beech deprived Menen-dez of a right to his property or appropriated the property to its own use or to the use of another person — essential elements under the civil theft statute. § 812.014(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). Summary judgment was thus correctly entered on the civil theft cause of action.
Lastly, no abuse of discretion is shown in the trial court’s denial of Menen-dez’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint alleging negligence. Since the record reflects that there was an arm’s length, competing business relationship between the parties which gave rise to no contractual duty of Beech to protect Men-endez’s financial interest, there can be no cause of action based on a breach of duty. See Robertson v. Deak Perera (Miami), Inc., 396 So. 2d 749 (Fla.3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…A 1994) (mortgagors failed to establish bank’s involvement in conspiracy where it was alleged only that bank had knowledge that development company’s continuing fraud was aided if bank supplied the loan); see also Menendez v. Beech Acceptance Corp., 521 So. 2d 178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (some proof of knowledge of a conspiracy and participation by tortfeasor must be shown to survive summary judgment); Trautz v. Weisman, 809 F.Supp. 239, 246 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (mere knowledge of the conspiracy is insufficient; th…
-
Ocean Bank OF Miami v. Inv-Uni Inv. Corp., 599 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…o a constructive fraud or legal fraud as those terms generally apply only where a confidential or fiduciary relationship has been abused. See Puchner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 553 So. 2d 216 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Menendez v. Beech Acceptance Corp., 521 So. 2d 178 (Fla.3d DCA 1988); 27 Fla.Jur.2d Fraud & Deceit § 14 (1981). Neither is there a claim that the bank conspired with the borrower’s officers to defraud the owner. See Snead v. United States Trucking Corp., 380 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1st DCA), rev. denied, 3…
-
GNB, Inc. v. United Danco Batteries, Inc., 627 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…itle Guarantee Corp. v. McDill Columbus Corp.; 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties, Inc. v. White, 531 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review denied, 541 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1989); Menendez v. Beech Acceptance Corp., 521 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Barroso v. Respiratory Care Servs., 518 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1988); Rosa v. Florida Coast Bank, 484 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Balter v. Ethyl Corp., 452 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1981)
- Robertson v. Deak Perera (Miami), Inc., 396 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Swafford v. Marion Edwards Auto Paint Supply, Inc., 307 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1975)
- Bunce v. Equip. Fabricators, Inc., 307 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1975)
- Menendez v. Founders Fin. Corp. & Barnett Bank of Tampa, N.A., 496 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Kaufmann v. The Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 496 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)