JASON GREENE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., 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.
This case clarifies the definition of "imposition" in the context of a claim for money had and received. The court held that "imposition" does not require coercion, but rather the payee taking advantage of the payor's position or circumstances to exact an unfair price. The court affirmed summary judgment for the hospital because the patient failed to show such imposition.
The court held that "imposition" occurs when a payee takes advantage of their position or the payor's circumstances to exact a price that is unfair and unreasonable, and this does not require coercion. The court found that the appellant did not present facts showing such imposition.
[1] "Imposition" in the context of money had and received requires the payee to apply pressure or take advantage of the payor, but the pressure or advantage need not rise to…
[2] A voluntary payment of hospital bills without protest, absent facts showing pressure or undue advantage by the payee, does not support a claim for money had and received…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“imposition” occurs when the payee “tak[es] advantage of his position, or the circumstances in which another is placed, [and] exacts a greater price for sendees rendered than is fair and reasonable .... ””
This quote defines the court's understanding of "imposition" for the claim of money had and received.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant voluntarily paid hospital bills without protest after treatment. He then sued the hospital for money had and received, alleging "imposit…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Appellee, in which the trial court ruled, in view of Appellant’s voluntary payment (without protest) of the hospital bills submitted after his treatment and release from the hospital, that Appellant failed to submit any facts to support his claim of money had and received based on “imposition.”
On review of the trial court’s order, this court must determine the proper definition of “imposition” in the context of the instant case and whether Appellant submitted facts to •withstand summary judgment thereon. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that “imposition” requires that the payee “coercively” exact excess money from the payor. Hall v. Humana Hosp. Daytona Beach, 686 So. 2d 653, 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(citing Cullen v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 63 Fla. 122, 58 So. 182, 184 (1912)), rev. denied, 694 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1997). This court, however, has defined “imposition” as something less than coercion, stating that “imposition” occurs when the payee “tak[es] advantage of his position, or the circumstances in which another is placed, [and] exacts a greater price for sendees rendered than is fair and reasonable .... ” Payne v. Humana Hosp. Orange Park, 661 So. 2d 1239, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(emphasis omitted)(quoting Southern States Power Co. v. Ivey, 118 Fla. 756, 760, 160 So. 46, 47 (1935)), rev. denied, 671 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1996).
Therefore, in line with Payne, we hold that the concept of “imposition” requires that the payee apply pressure or take advantage of the payor. The pressure applied or advantage taken does not have to rise to the level of actual coercion. Here, the record is devoid of facts indicating that Appellant was under pressure greater than that felt by any debtor or that Appellee took advantage of Appellant. Accordingly, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., and COSTELLO, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlile v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Greene v. Alachua General Hosp., Inc., 705 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., and COSTELLO, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Hassen v. Mediaone OF Greater Fla., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). However, the pressure or advantage must be of such an extent as to remove the situation from the ordinary debtor-creditor relationship and negate the voluntariness of the payment. See Greene v. Alachua General Hospital, 705 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Greenfield v. Manor Care Inc., 705 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Otherwise, the voluntary payment may bar recovery, in accordance with the usual rule as applied in cases such as Hall v. Humana Hospital Daytona Beach, 686 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Cullen v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co., 63 Fla. 122 (Fla. 1912)
- Hall v. Humana Hosp. Daytona Beach, 686 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- EDD Helms Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Valentini, 661 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- S. States Power Co. v. Ivey, 118 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1935)