ALEIDA SANCHEZ, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CARLOS ENCINAS, ETC., 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.
The court reversed a judgment for breach of contract and civil theft because the plaintiff failed to prove he would have profited from performance and the record showed only a bona fide property dispute negating the intent required for theft.
A plaintiff cannot recover for breach of contract when he fails to establish he would have profited from performance, and cannot recover for civil theft when a bona fide dispute over property rights negates the required wrongful intent.
[1] A bona fide dispute over the right to property negates the wrongful intent element required to sustain a claim for civil theft.
[2] A plaintiff cannot recover damages for breach of contract without establishing that he would have profited from performance of the agreement.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA professional singer sued for breach of a contract to promote his recordings and for civil theft of a master tape involved in the agreement, and reco…
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 Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff-appellee, a professional singer, recovered damages for breach of a contract to promote the plaintiffs recordings and for “civil theft” of a master tape which was involved in the agreement. We reverse the breach of contract award because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not establish that he would have profited in any way even if the agreement had been performed, see A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and the judgment under the theft statute because the record shows, at most, a bona fide dispute over the right to the property in question, and thus negates the wrongful intent required to sustain a claim for theft. See Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellants.
Reversed.
Upon consideration, appellee’s motion for clarification is granted. The decision in this cause does not affect the unchallenged ruling below that the appellee is entitled to return of the tapes in question. The appellants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is denied. SCHWARTZ, C.J., NESBITT and COPE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…apart from breach of contract there can be no action in tort); Swaebe v. Sears World Trade, 639 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (absent a separate and independent tort, breach of contract may not be converted into a tort action); Sanchez v. Encinas, 627 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (bona fide contractual dispute negates any claim for civil theft); Gambolati v. Sarkisian, 622 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (claim for civil theft and conversion may not lie where relationship is contractual in nature); Gilman Ya…
-
Smith v. State, 701 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…y Bank harbored any evil intent as far as their actions were concerned, or that these entities had knowledge that Smith was entitled to the funds in question. See Lewis v. Heartsong, Inc., 559 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Sanchez v. Encinas, 627 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms, 526 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988). Although the subject order does not set forth the trial court’s reasons for dismissal of the state agencies, dismissa…
Authorities Cited
- Murray Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Senfeld v. The Bank of Nova Scotia Tr. Co. (cayman) Ltd., 450 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Skylight Corp. v. State, 450 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Rodriguez v. State, 396 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Salameh K. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)