F & A DAIRY PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
IMPERIAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PALM COAST VEAL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2001-10-24
No. 4D00-4582
STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
798 So. 2d 803 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

F & A Dairy Products sued Palm Coast Veal under Florida Statutes § 68.065 for recovery on a dishonored check with treble damages. The trial court awarded treble damages but then waived them on motion for rehearing based on economic hardship, which the appellate court reversed for lack of evidentiary support.


Holding

The trial court abused its discretion by waiving treble damages without any evidence that payment would constitute economic hardship. The trier of fact must determine whether failure to pay was due to economic hardship, and here no such determination was supported by the record.


Headnotes

[1] A payee may bring a cause of action against a drawer for recovery of the amount of a dishonored check plus treble damages if payment is refused for insufficient funds.

[2] A trial court has discretion to waive all or part of statutory treble damages for a dishonored check if the failure to pay was due to economic hardship.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“If the court or jury determines that the failure of the maker or drawer to satisfy the dishonored check was due to economic hardship, the court or jury has the discretion to waive all or part of the statutory damages.”

Sets out the statutory provision allowing discretionary waiver of treble damages upon finding of economic hardship

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

F & A Dairy Products was the payee of a check written by Palm Coast Veal Corporation that was dishonored for insufficient funds. The trial court initi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, F & A Dairy Products, Inc. (F & A), as payee of a check written by appellee, Palm Coast Veal Corporation (Palm Coast), sued Palm Coast under section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes (1999). That section provides that if payment of a check is refused by a drawee-bank for insufficient funds, a payee may bring a cause of action against the drawer for recovery of the amount of the check plus treble the amount of the check. F & A’s cause of action was tried to the court and judgment was entered for F & A for the amount of the check plus treble damages.

Palm Coast filed a motion for rehearing arguing that the payment of the treble damages was an economic hardship which the trial court had the discretion to waive under section 68.065(6), Florida Statutes (1999). After Palm Coast presented its argument at the hearing thereon, the trial court granted the motion for rehearing and waived the treble damage award.

Section 68.065(1), Florida Statutes, provides:

If the court or jury determines that the failure of the maker or drawer to satisfy the dishonored check was due to economic hardship, the court or jury has the discretion to waive all or part of the statutory damages.

The third district discussed the application of this subsection in Krontz v. Feiler, 553 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989):

The statute does have a provision, not applicable here, which allows the trier of fact to waive all or part of the statutory of damages in case of economic hardship. § 68.065(5) [now (6) ], Fla. Stat. Where that defense is not applicable, the maker or drawer must either pay the sum demanded, or if there is a bona fide dispute, the appropriate procedure would be for the maker or drawer of the instrument to interplead the funds. Tendering the sum to the court would, in our view, constitute good faith compliance with the statute and would preclude the claim for treble damages.

Id. at 1303 (emphasis added).

The judge or jury, as trier of fact, must determine if the failure to pay was due to economic hardship. In this case the record indicates that Palm Coast did not raise economic hardship as an affirmative defense nor did it present any evidence at the trial or at the hearing on the motion for rehearing1 that payment of the statutory damages would be an economic hardship. As there was no evidence upon which the waiver of the damages could be based, the trial court abused its discretion in so finding. We, therefore, reverse and remand for reinstatement of the treble damage award.

STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a)(2000) permits, in matters heard without a jury, the trial court to open the judgment to take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Diaz v. Bell Microproducts-Future Tech, Inc., 43 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …hat the failure of USA Direct to satisfy the dishonored checks was due to economic hardship, the trier of fact, in its discretion, may waive all or part of the treble damages as to Diaz. See F & A Dairy Prods., Inc. v. Imperial Food Distribs., Inc., 798 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that the “judge or jury, as trier of fact,” must determine if failure to pay dishonored check was due to economic hardship); C & S Computers, Inc. v. Bodensiek, 662 So. 2d 1383, 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“[Wjhen sec…
  • Hutson v. Plantation Open MRI, LLC, 66 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …a result of economic hardship, this raised a question of material fact that should have been decided by the fact finder at a trial and not a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. F & A Dairy Prods., Inc. [*1046] v. Imperial Food Distribs., Inc., 798 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We reverse the decisions of the trial court and remand for the trial court to vacate the summary judgment in favor of Plantation MRI and grant Hutson’s motion to amend his answer to add affirmative defenses. WARNER and LE…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw