BRENDA WILLIAMS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARYE JOHNSON, ET AL., 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.
Trial court properly granted directed verdict for appellees because appellants' unjust enrichment claim was barred by the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter.
A claim for unjust enrichment cannot be pursued when an express contract exists covering the same subject matter.
[1] When an express contract exists between parties covering the same subject matter, a claim for unjust enrichment arising out of that contractual relationship is barred.
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 intelligenceAppellants Brenda Williams and Epiphany Community Development Corp. sought damages against appellees Marye Johnson and Comprehensive Outreach Programs…
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 Contractual Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Brenda Williams and Epiphany Community Development Corp. appeal from the trial court’s entry of judgment 'in accordance with appellees’ motion for directed verdict in favor of appellees, Marye Johnson and Comprehensive Outreach Programs, Inc. Upon our de novo review, we hold that the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion and entered judgment in their favor. Appellants sought damages on a theory of unjust enrichment. However, given the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter, “claims arising out of that contractual relationship will not support a claim for unjust enrichment.” Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), disapproved of on other grounds, Bank of New York Mellon v. Condo. Ass’n of La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So.3d 282 (Fla. 2015). See also Braham v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 170 So.3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Diamond “S” Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) for the proposition that plaintiff could.not pursue unjust enrichment claim where express contract existed concerning the same subject matter); Atlantis Estate Acquisitions, Inc., v. DePierro, 125 So.3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clifton v. State, 241 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Diamond "S" Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Marie-Laure Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Condo. Ass'n OF LA MER Ests., Inc., 175 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2015)
- Braham v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 170 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Atlantis Est. Acquisitions, Inc. v. DePIERRO, 125 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)