ALAN LIEBERMAN AND DIANE LIEBERMAN D/B/A ANGLER HOTEL PARTNERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
PIANETA MIAMI, 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.
The court held that any errors in admitting evidence of a criminal conviction and net worth were harmless, and the cross-appeal lacked merit.
Appellants/defendants were found liable for unjust enrichment after a jury trial, and the court reserved jurisdiction for damages. Appellants argued p…
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 Ejectment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment after a jury trial against appellants/defendants, Alan and Diane Lieberman, quieting title, granting ejectment and finding appel-lee/plaintiff, Pianeta Miami, Inc., liable for unjust enrichment. The trial court reserved jurisdiction for a trial to determine the amount of unjust enrichment. For the reasons given below, we affirm.
The Liebermans argue on appeal that the jury was unduly influenced by admission of references to (1) Mr. Lieberman’s 1984 criminal conviction for Medicaid fraud and (2) his net worth. Assuming arguendo that the reference to either of these matters was error, we conclude that the Lie-bermans were not prejudiced by them. The fraud conviction was mentioned only once during the three-week trial and was not a feature of the trial. As to the revelation of Lieberman’s net worth, we find that it was not prejudicial when viewed in the context of other testimony heard by the jury. We conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the claimed errors contributed to the verdict and therefore find them to be harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
Pianeta cross-appeals the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of the Liebermans on its fraud claim and the court’s summary judgment for the Liebermans on its negligence claim. We find no merit in Piane-ta’s cross-appeal and affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pianeta Miami, Inc. v. Lieberman, 949 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ly denied the release of Pianeta’s unrestricted assets. Reversed and remanded. . The Liebermans appealed the final judgment in Pianeta’s favor quieting title and granting ejectment. We affirmed the final judgment. Liebennan v. Pianeta Miami, Inc., 865 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). . The Liebermans appealed the denial of their motion for additur or rehearing on the final judgment. Currently, that appeal is pending with this court. . In Konover, we noted that an order requiring a court deposit may be revie…
-
Pianeta Miami, Inc. v. Alan and Diane Lieberman, 990 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…nting the Liebermans’ ejectment. In addition, the Liebermans prevailed on their unjust enrichment counter-claim. The parties appealed and cross-appealed to this court. We affirmed the final judgment in its entirety. Lieberman v. Pianeta Miami, Inc., 865 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Pianeta I”). Neither party sought rehearing or clarification of our ruling. Following our mandate, the proceedings on damages for the Liebermans’ unjust enrichment claim took place. The Lieber-mans were awarded $38,035.46. This…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)