CHARLES R. ABELE, JR., HOLLY JACKSON ABELE, JOHN RALPH AND FRAN RALPH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF BROWARD INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE CENTER, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DELORES SAWYER, DAVID SAWYER, QUALITY CONCRETE & RENTAL, INC., MARVIN DANTO, JAMES DANTO, AND BROWARD INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE PARK, L.P., 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.
In this companion case to Abele v. Sawyer, the Abele Group appealed the trial court's dismissal of their complaint against Broward International Commerce Park, L.P. alleging constructive trust and tortious interference. The court affirmed the dismissal of the constructive trust claim but reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference claim.
The constructive trust claim was properly dismissed because the complaint failed to allege the necessary elements between Commerce Park and the Abele Group, specifically no fiduciary relationship, no direct transfer from the Abele Group to Commerce Park, and no promises made directly between Commerce Park or the Dantos and the Abele Group. However, the tortious interference claim stated a cause of action and should not have been dismissed.
[1] A complaint fails to state a cause of action for constructive trust when the necessary elements of a promise, transfer of property, reliance, confidential relationship, a…
[2] A fiduciary relationship is legally imposed where a relationship of trust and confidence exists between parties, with one party reposing trust and the other accepting it.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the four-element test for constructive trust that the complaint must satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Abele Group and their corporation BICC owned property that was transferred to Commerce Park, which was owned by the Dantos. The complaint alleged …
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 Tortious Interference With A Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
In this companion case to Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“Abele I”) (issued October 20, 1999), appellants, referred to collectively as the Abele Group, claim that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint against Broward International Commerce Park, L.P. (“Commerce Park”) which alleged theories of constructive trust and tortious interference. We hold that the complaint stated a cause of action as to tortious interference but did not state a claim for constructive trust.
The facts of this case are fully set forth in Abele I. The Dantos, appellees in Abele I, also the appellee in the instant appeal, owned Commerce Park. The property owned by the Abele Group and their corporation, Broward International Commerce Center (“BICC”), was transferred to Commerce Park according to the allegations of the complaint. In count one of the complaint, the Abele Group sought to impose a constructive trust on the property transferred from BICC to Commerce Park. The trial court dismissed this count of the complaint.
In Abele I, we summarized the elements of a constructive trust:
[a] constructive trust is imposed by operation of law as an equitable remedy in a situation where there is a wrongful taking of the property of another. See Finkelstein v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The necessary elements for imposition of a constructive trust are: (1) a promise, express or implied; (2) a transfer of the property and reliance thereon; (3) a confidential relationship; and (4) unjust enrichment. See Provence v. Palm Beach Taverns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Id. In the instant case, the complaint alleges that the Dantos, acting on behalf of Commerce Park, agreed with BICC and its shareholders and developers to construct all buildings of the BICC project and to sell the project to Commerce Park only after the construction of all of the buildings on the parcels. The complaint also alleges the existence of confidential and fiduciary relationships based on a series of agreements and promises made by the Sawyers and one of their corporations. “A fiduciary relationship under Florida law is a legally imposed relationship which will be found to exist where a relation of trust and confidence exists between the parties, that is, where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.” Inversiones Inmobiliarias Internacionales de Orlando Sociedad Anomina v. Barnett Bank of Cent. Florida, N.A., 584 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (citation omitted). No fiduciary relationship was alleged between Commerce Park and the Abele Group. Similarly, no transfer occurred from the Abele Group to Commerce Park, and no promises were made between Commerce Park or the Dantos and the Abele Group. Thus, the necessary elements of a constructive trust were not pled as between Commerce Park and the Abele Group, and the trial court properly dismissed this claim.1
With respect to the count for tortious interference, we reverse for the same reasons as set forth in Abele I.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
STONE, J., and COX, CYNTHIA L„ Associate Judge, concur. . While these elements may have existed as between Commerce Park and BICC, this appeal concerns an action brought by the Abele Group in ‘its individual capacity, not on behalf of BICC through a derivative action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horizons Rehab., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 810 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…sh the creation of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, in any event. Health Care had no fiduciary duty to Horizons as the parties were not in a fiduciary relationship, i.e., no trust was imposed or accepted by Health Care. Abele v. Sawyer, 747 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).5 Count VIII for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, Count X for breach of contract, and Count XI for tortuous breach of contract, are not intentional torts and are similarly barred by the releases. The court struck t…
-
Collinson v. Miller, 903 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…nstructive trust in a manner similar to a cause of action, by discussing the “elements” of such a claim and even treating such a claim for constructive trust as subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. See, e.g., Abele v. Sawyer, 747 So. 2d 415, 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In part, this may be because the remedy developed in equity at common law and the exact parameters for its use have never been clear. Justice Cardozo stated, “A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience…
-
Oralia Baez v. State, 777 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2001)…LEWIS, J. We have for review the decision in Baez v. State, 747 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Baez challenges her five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act1 (“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous opin…
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
- Provence v. Palm Beach Taverns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Hausbach v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Inversiones Inmobiliarias Internacionales de Orlando Sociedad Anomina v. Barnett Bank OF Cent. Fla., N.A., 584 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)