GEORGE BOURIS AND VIRGINIA CHAGARIS F/K/A VIRGINIA NIKITAKIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DRENIK COMMUNICATIONS, 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.
The court reversed in part a judgment awarding damages for conversion and civil theft, finding the trial court incorrectly calculated the amount Bouris received for selling his interest in an FCC license at $60,000 when the record evidence showed only $40,000.
The trial court's damages award against Bouris for conversion and civil theft must be reduced because the only competent evidence shows he received $40,000, not $60,000, for the sale of his FCC license interest.
[1] Damages for conversion and civil theft must be based on competent, substantial evidence in the record, and a trial court's factual finding unsupported by such evidence wi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBouris and Chagaris were parties to a dispute with Drenik Communications, Inc. involving the sale of Bouris's interest in Drenik's FCC license. The tr…
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 Civil Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
George Bouris and Virginia Chagaris appeal a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial granting declaratory relief and damages against them in favor of Drenik Communications, Inc. We reverse the final judgment in part, and we remand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment reflecting the correct amount of damages to be assessed against Bouris.
Bouris and Chagaris raise multiple challenges to the final judgment. Only one merits discussion. The trial court found that Bouris had received the sum of $60,000 for the sale of his interest in Dre-nik’s FCC license. The only competent, substantial evidence on this point in the record is that Bouris received $40,000 — not $60,000 — for the sale of his interest in the license. The trial court’s assessment of damages against Bouris for conversion and civil theft was based on the incorrect $60,000 figure. Hence the record evidence supports an award of damages against Bouris on Count III, Conversion, of only $40,000. Likewise, the record evidence supports an award of damages against Bouris on Count TV, Civil Theft, of only $80,000. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment in part, and we remand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment reflecting the appropriate amounts.
In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.