ARNOLD W. SANTOS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA W. BOGH, 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 fraud case, a defendant-employee of a dance studio appeals a judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages for fraudulently inducing a widow to purchase dance lessons and a dance studio. The court affirmed the compensatory damages but reversed the punitive damages award, holding that a judge sitting as fact-finder in an equity action cannot award punitive damages absent statutory authority.
The court affirmed the award of $36,000 in compensatory damages for the dance lessons, finding substantial evidence supported the fraud finding. However, the court reversed the $5,000 punitive damages award, holding that a judge sitting as fact-finder in an action formerly cognizable in equity cannot award punitive damages absent statutory authority.
[1] A judge sitting as the trier of facts in an action formerly cognizable in equity may not award punitive damages absent statutory authority.
[2] Substantial evidence in the record can sustain a chancellor's findings of fraud and support an award of compensatory damages.
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“a judge sitting as the trier of the facts in an action formerly cognizable in equity as in the case sub judice may not award punitive damages, absent statutory authority”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that prohibits punitive damages awards by judges (rather than juries) in equity actions without statutory authorization
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Anna Bogh, a lonely widow, was fraudulently induced over seven months to purchase over $36,000 worth of dance lessons she never used and to …
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 Equitable Action cases and more on FLexlaw
[*461] PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of that portion of an adverse final judgment awarding plaintiff-appellee compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiff-appellee, Anna Bogh filed a complaint for fraud, rescission, an accounting, dissolution of a corporation and damages against the defendants J & A Dance Studios of Ft. Lauderdale, Michael Lom-bardo, the vice-president thereof, and the appellant, Arnold Santos, an employee of the dance studio. In essence she alleged that over a period of seven months, the defendants fraudulently had induced her, a lonely widow, to purchase over $36,000 worth of dancing lessons and in addition to purchase her own dance studio, Anike, Inc., for $22,000 with defendant Lombardo as a partner, who invested nothing therein but drew a salary of about $200 per week. The cause came on for trial, at the conclusion of which the chancellor found that defendants J & A Dance Studios and Arnold Santos had induced plaintiff through fraud to enter into dance lesson contracts and that the totality of Santos’ conduct was done with moral turpitude, malice and wilfulness. The chancellor further found that defendant Lombardo by fraudulent misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to pay in excess of $22,000 for the dance studio, An-ike, Inc. Thereupon, the court entered judgment directing that (1) defendants J & A Dance Studios of Fort Lauderdale and Arnold Santos pay to plaintiff $36,000 as compensatory damages for the cost of dance lessons which Mrs. Bogh never used and in addition, defendant Arnold Santos pay plaintiff $5,000 as punitive damages, (2) that defendant Michael Lombardo pay plaintiff $22,000 and (3) that Anike, Inc. be dissolved. Defendant Santos appeals that portion of the final judgment awarding damages against him. The other defendants are not parties to this appeal.
We have reviewed the record and conclude there was substantial evidence contained therein to sustain the findings of the chancellor that the appellant had induced the plaintiff through fraud to enter into the dance lesson contracts and the evidence presented supports the award of compensatory damages.
Nevertheless, with respect to ' the award of punitive damages, we are in agreement with the appellant that the granting thereof is erroneous as this court has been and is committed to the rule that a judge sitting as the trier of the facts in an action formerly cognizable in equity as in the case sub judice may not award punitive damages, absent statutory authority. Lee v. Watsco, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 241 at 243 and cases cited therein.
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final judgment herein appealed directing that defendant-appellant Arnold Santos pay $5,000 as punitive damages to the plaintiff. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clemens B. Hoppe v. Margot Hoppe, 370 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…whether appellant could be held liable for punitive damages, the law is clear in Florida that absent a statutory authority, a judge sitting as a trier of fact in an action formally cognizable in equity may not award punitive damages. Santos v. Bogh, 298 So. 2d 460 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Lee v. Watsco, Inc., 263 So. 2d 241 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); R.C. #17 Corp. v. Korenblit, 207 So. 2d 296 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). In the case sub judice, the complaint fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations to sustain a prayer for…
-
Barnett Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…at case as establishing a litmus test for the award of special masters’ fees. . It is true that a court trying a matter formerly cognizable in equity may not award punitive damages. Hoppe v. Hoppe, 370 So. 2d 374 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Santos v. Bogh, 298 So. 2d 460 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Lee v. Watsco, Inc., 263 So. 2d 241 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); R.C. # 17 Corp. v. Korenblit, 207 So. 2d 296 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Orkin Exterminating Company of South Florida, Inc. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 117 So. 2d 419 (Fla.3d DCA 1960). Howe…
-
Lanman Lithotech, Inc. v. Gurwitz, 478 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ief as to punitive damages runs counter to the traditional view that equity will not award punitive damages unless authorized by statute. See Hoppe v. Hoppe, 370 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), rev. denied, 379 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1979); Santos v. Bogh, 298 So. 2d 460 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); R.C. No. 17 Corp. v. Korenblit, 207 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Orkin Exterm. Co. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 117 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), rev. denied 120 So. 2d 619 (Fla.1960). This court recently quashed an order denying a mo…
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. Watsco, Inc., 263 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)