DONALD LLOYD AND GIANT MOTOR CORPORATION, D/B/A G. M. C. AGENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY DEFERRARI, 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.
Lloyd and Giant Motor Corporation appealed a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to DeFerrari for selling him a stolen boat while fraudulently representing it as legitimately owned. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding substantial evidence supported liability on both breach of warranty of title and fraud counts.
The appellate court held that no reversible error occurred. The trial court correctly denied defendants' motion for directed verdict, the jury's findings on liability were supported by competent substantial evidence on both counts, the fraud claim against Lloyd individually was adequately substantiated, and punitive damages were appropriate as a matter of law.
[1] A jury verdict supported by competent substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
[2] A seller's misrepresentation that a boat was purchased two years prior, when it was in fact stolen and subsequently transferred to the seller's corporation, can support f…
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“The finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff, on liability under the two counts, was supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the appellate court's standard of review and findings that both the warranty breach and fraud claims had sufficient evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyd owned stock in Giant Motor Corporation and negotiated with DeFerrari to sell him a boat for $5,000, representing that he had purchased it two ye…
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 Breach Of Warranty Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is by the defendants below from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict for compensatory and punitive damages.
The facts disclosed in the record included the following. The individual defendant Lloyd, with another party, owned all of the stock of the defendant corporation. The plaintiff negotiated with Lloyd for the purchase of a boat. Lloyd represented he had purchased the boat two years previously. He offered it for sale to the plaintiff for $5,000. Plaintiff purchased the boat and made certain improvements. Thereafter it was discovered the boat had been stolen some months earlier, sold to a third party (for $2,500, which was approximately one-third of its value), and thereafter transferred to the defendant corporation. There was basis in the evidence for the finders of fact to conclude the defendants sold the boat knowing it was stolen property, by representing it to be otherwise.
The plaintiff filed action charging breach of warranty of title, and in a separate count charging fraud and misrepresentation. Compensatory and punitive damages were sought. On trial, the jury was charged by the court on the elements of compensatory damages on the warranty count, and on the fraud count the court properly charged the jury with reference to damages including punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for compensatory damages, and for punitive damages against both defendants.
We hold no reversible error has been shown. The court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. The finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff, on liability under the two counts, was supported by competent substantial evidence. The count on breach of warranty of title was proved against the seller corporation. The count on fraud and misrepresentation was adequately substantiated by the evidence. The contention of the appellant Lloyd that a verdict against him on the latter count was not justified on the evidence, is without merit. Ramel v. Chasebrook Construction Company, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 876; Levenstein v. Sapiro, Fla.1973, 279 So. 2d 858.
On the facts of the case punitive damages were appropriate to be allowed as a matter of law. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214, 221; Lehman v. Kings, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 181 So. 2d 228; Associated Heavy Equipment Schools, Inc. v. Masiello, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 465; City of Hollywood v. Coley, Fla.App.1971, 258 So. 2d 828; Rinaldi v. Aaron, Fla.1975, 314 So. 2d 762 (Opinion filed April 30, 1975). No contention of excessiveness of the damages awarded was preserved and argued in the appellants’ brief.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987)…452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Gottsch v. Walker, 376 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980); Charter Air Center, Inc. v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977); Lloyd v. De-Ferrari, 314 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1976); Roger Holler Chevrolet Co. v. Arvey, 314 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973); City of Hol…
-
Charter AIR Ctr., Inc. v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…r fraudulent acts of his own or those in which he participates. Ramel v. Chasebrook Construction Company, 135 So. 2d 876 (Fla.2d DCA 1961). Cf. Levenstein v. Sapiro, 279 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1973). 19 Am.Jur.2d Corporations § 1383. In Lloyd v. DeFerrari, 314 So. 2d 224 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), the court upheld a judgment for punitive damages against the sole stockholder of a corporation who had acted for the corporation in fraudulently selling a boat with the knowledge that it was previously stolen. I believe there is…
Authorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Ramel v. Chasebrook Constr. Co., Inc., 135 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975)
- Associated Heavy Equip. Schs., Inc. v. Masiello, 219 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Levenstein v. Sapiro, 279 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1973)
- City OF Hollywood v. Coley, 258 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Lehmann v. King's, Inc., 181 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)