FRANK STEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES MCDONALD, 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.
In this landlord-tenant dispute, a lessee counterclaimed for conversion after the lessor refused to allow removal of store improvements. While the appellate court affirmed the finding of liability for conversion, it reversed the damage award of $2,000 because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the improvements' original cost rather than their fair market value as used property.
The court affirmed liability for conversion but reversed the damage award because the trial court erred in admitting original cost evidence rather than requiring proof of the fair market value of the property as used goods at the time of conversion. The proper measure of damages is the value of the property at the time and place of conversion, which in this case meant the value of the used property after removal from the premises.
“The recognized measure of damages in an action for conversion of personal property is the value of the property at the time and place of conversion, with interest to the date of the verdict.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for calculating conversion damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stein leased store premises to appellee McDonald. McDonald installed various improvements including work benches, shelving, light fixtures, …
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 Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant sued appellee for rent under a lease of store premises and was awarded a summary judgment for $861. The appellee-lessee counterclaimed for damages for conversion based upon lessor’s refusal to allow removal of certain improvements as agreed.1 On trial of the counterclaim the lessee received a verdict for $2,000 plus costs.2 Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant for that amount less the $861 which had been awarded to the lessor. On this appeal the plaintiff-lessor seeks reversal of the judgment on the counterclaim. We affirm the judgment as to liability but must reverse and remand the cause for new trial on damages on the counterclaim. The trial court was in error in permitting the counterclaimant to present, as evidence of the value of the personal property involved,3 the cost thereof including the cost of installation. Appellee’s testimony of the cost of the improvements was objected to, and the failure to prove market value was assigned as error and argued in appellee’s brief. The lessee had departed the premises, and his claim for damages was based on the lessor’s refusal to permit lessee to remove this personal property from the leased premises. Therefore, lessee was deprived of second hand or used property at its value after removal from the premises.4 For that reason, the cases relied on by ap-pellee for the proposition that original cost may be shown in proof of value are not applicable. Counterclaimant presented no evidence of value, with the exception of a valuation of $250 based on certain miscellaneous unattached articles referred to in subparagraph (e) as listed in footnote No. 1. A witness produced by counterdefend-ant testified with reference to the value of the property upon being removed, and valued all of it at $95 on that basis, not including the $250 miscellaneous items. The jury award of $2,000 for the personal property was such as to show that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence or was improperly based on the cost evidence and not on its value as used property after removal.
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for new trial on damages on the counterclaim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cenvill Invs., Inc. v. Columbus, 483 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…incorrect. We agree, and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the value in accordance with the proper standard; namely, the value of secondhand improvements to be taken out of the building. Appellant cites as authority Stein v. McDonald, 149 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In Stein, the lessor sued for rent due under the lease and the lessee counterclaimed for damages for conversion based on the lessor’s refusal to allow removal of certain improvements. The appellate court held the lessee was depri…
Authorities Cited
- Pettigrew v. W & H Dev. Co., 122 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)