KENNETH R. LEVINE, STEVEN J. MILGROM AND CAROL MILGROM, HIS WIFE D/B/A LEVINE & MILGROM JOINT VENTURE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIENI MCFARLANE, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Plaintiff expended substantial sums renovating restaurant space in anticipation of a lease, but when the parties could not agree on terms, plaintiff sued the building owners for unjust enrichment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that damages for unjust enrichment should be measured by the enhancement to the property's value, not the cost of improvements, but finding sufficient evidence supported the award because an architect testified to the property's value increase.
Damages for unjust enrichment must be measured by the enhancement to the property's value from the owner's standpoint, not the cost incurred by the improver. However, because plaintiff presented evidence of the property's value enhancement through expert testimony that exceeded the judgment amount, there was sufficient evidence to support the damages award despite the plaintiff also presenting cost evidence.
[1] In an unjust enrichment claim, compensation is generally measured by the benefit conferred upon the defendant, not the cost incurred by the plaintiff.
[2] Where a plaintiff proves that improvements to a property enhanced its value by an amount greater than the award, the award may be sustained even if the plaintiff also pre…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“compensation was to be measured by the amount by which the improvements enhanced the value of the property”
The court's statement of the rule from Arey v. Williams establishing that unjust enrichment damages are based on value enhancement, not cost
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, anticipating a lease for restaurant space based on the owners' representations, made substantial improvements to the space. When the restau…
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 Unjust Enrichment cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Plaintiff, anticipating that it would enter into a lease for restaurant space based on representations of the owners of a building, expended substantial sums renovating the space. When the restaurant was nearly complete the parties were not able to agree on terms, and plaintiff brought this suit against the owners, who knew that the improvements were being made, for unjust enrichment. The owners appeal a judgment entered against them, arguing that the court erred in awarding damages based on plaintiffs costs. We affirm.
In Arey v. Williams, 81 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1955), the defendant and her son, who thought they owned a parcel of land, made improvements, but subsequently lost a quiet title action. The trial court held that they should be reimbursed for the improvements, but used language in the judgment which indicated that it might have based its award on the cost of the improvements. The supreme court reversed, holding that under those circumstances compensation was to be measured by the amount by which the improvements enhanced the value of the property. The owners argue in the present case that plaintiff proved damages only by establishing the cost to plaintiff to construct the improvements, and therefore plaintiffs recovery for unjust enrichment should be reversed.
Plaintiff cites two cases which it claims stand for the proposition that the cost to the improver of the property can be recovered in an unjust enrichment case. Although there were statements to that effect in Stevens v. Crowder, 273 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and Horton v. O’Rourke, 321 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the method of determining compensation did not appear to be in issue in those cases. One of the cases, Horton, was impliedly overruled in Coffee Pot Plaza Partnership v. Arrow Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., 412 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), in which the court recognized that it was the benefit to the owner, not the cost to the improver, which would be the basis for an award in an unjust enrichment, ease. In apy event, the statements in Stevens and Horton are contrary to the supreme court’s holding in Arey, as well as the general rule. See 41 Am.Jur.2d Improvements § 28 (1995); see also Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc., 467 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Although we agree with the owner that the damages for unjust enrichment in this ease would have to be based on enhancement to the property from the standpoint of the owner, we do not agree that this requires reversal. While it is true that plaintiff presented evidence of its costs of making the improvements, it also presented the testimony of an architect who testified that the improvements enhanced the value of the property by an amount which was greater than the amount awarded in the final judgment which contained no findings of fact. We thus conclude that there was evidence to support damages based on enhancement to the property. We have considered the other arguments raised and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.H. Paschen v. B & B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ir profit participation agreement with PMI. They presented no evidence of the value of the benefit conferred upon American Safety in the form of the PMI stock or the promissory notes that plaintiffs relinquished. Cf. Levine v. Fieni McFarlane, Inc., 690 So. 2d 712, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting plaintiff presented testimony supporting damages based on enhancement to property). “[T]he damages in this case are highly speculative. Damages cannot be based on speculation, conjecture or guesswork.” Swindell v. Cr…
-
Alvarez v. ALL Star Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…y be valued based on either (1) the market value of the services; or (2) the value of the services to the party unjustly enriched. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §§ 49(3)(a) & (c)(2011). See Levine v. Fieni McFarlane, Inc., 690 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding it was the benefit to the recipient, not the cost to the provider, which forms the basis for an award in an unjust enrichment case). Because unjust enrichment damages are economic damages, the amount of damages mus…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coffee POT Plaza P'ship v. Arrow AIR Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc., 412 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc., 467 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Horton v. O'Rourke, 321 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Arey v. Williams, 81 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1955)
- Stevens v. Crowder, 273 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)