JOSEF BRUNS, APPELLANT,
v.
RICK E. BRUNS, AN INDIVIDUAL, LAUDERDALE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, DR. RICK E. BRUNS, P.A., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LAUDERDALE DIAGNOSTIC & THERAPY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ESTATE OF COREEN BRUNS, JEANNINE EVERY, HOWARD EVERY, JEFFREY C. KETTERSON, GOLD COAST MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MRI MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MEDICAL SERVICES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for appellees on a constructive trust claim based on misappropriation of funds, holding that the type of account to which converted funds were transferred is immaterial to recovery.
Once funds are converted, a constructive trust is proper regardless of the account type to which the funds were transferred.
[1] A constructive trust may be imposed for misappropriated funds regardless of the type of account to which the converted funds were transferred.
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 intelligenceCoreen Bruns misappropriated funds from her husband Rick Bruns and his corporations, transferring the funds to various accounts.…
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 Conversion Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant urged the trial court to decide this case on summary judgment. A movant may not ask the trial court to decide a specific question on summary judgment, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and then take the contrary position on appeal. See Wilmo on the Bluffs, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 559 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Board of Pub. Instruction of Dade County v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1971).
In any event, one alternative basis of the trial court’s decision was that appellees were entitled to a constructive trust because Coreen Bruns had misappropriated funds from her husband and his corporations. As the trial court noted, once the funds were converted, the imposition of a constructive trust was proper, “regardless of where Co-reen Bruns initially deposited or transferred the said funds.” Because summary judgment was appropriate on the constructive trust theory, it does not matter that there may have been remaining fact issues on the type of account to which the converted funds were transferred. Appellees’ entitlement to recover the converted monies did not turn on whether Coreen Bruns had once transferred the funds from an account by the entireties or a joint account with right of survivorship. Compare Sitomer v. Orlan, 660 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Chanin, 940 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e the distinction between a conversion and an action to impose a constructive trust, a separate theory of recovery that might apply to a case such as this. Chanin argues that Sandler v. Jaffe, 913 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and Bruns v. Bruns, 682 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), support her cause of action at law for conversion. However, both San-dler and Bruns involved the imposition of a constructive trust, an equitable remedy. See Collinson v. Miller, 903 So. 2d 221, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The esse…
-
Davis v. REX, 876 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…179, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The exception to this general rule does create an estoppel where the movant for summary judgment has taken a very specific position that there is no issue of fact as to a particular issue. Id.; see also Bruns v. Bruns, 682 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Appel [*613] lants have taken a consistent position that the facts overwhelmingly support their contention that a drafting mistake was made. Thus, any purported estoppel either does not exist or is immaterial to the position tak…
-
Sandler v. Jaffe, 913 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…en, Ellen had withdrawn approximately $27,000 for her personal use. The balance remained in the restricted account pending further order of the court. On September 3, 2003, the trial court entered judgment for the Estate, relying on Bruns v. Bruns, 682 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and imposed a.constructive trust over the Greenpoint Bank account. At trial, appellant improperly relied on section 655.78(1), Florida Statutes (2003), to advance her position that as a joint owner of the account she was entitl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sitomer v. Richard M. Orlan for Belle Orlan Sitomer, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Allen v. Emp'rs Serv. Corp., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Hunter v. Bohnert Roofing & Supply Co., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Wilmo ON THE Bluffs, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 559 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)