American Intern. Land Corp. v. Hanna
| Decision Date | 15 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45246,45246 |
| Citation | 323 So.2d 567 |
| Parties | AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL LAND CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Robert J. HANNA, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard W. Mazloff, of Weithorn & Mazloff, Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Ronald S. Guralnick, of Guralnick & Gellman, Miami, for respondent.
This cause is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 289 So.2d 756. Jurisdiction for our review is established by the direct conflict between the district court's decision and Associated Heavy Equip. Schools, Inc. v. Masiello, 219 So.2d 465 (3rd Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969). 1 We have concluded that the rule of law articulated in Masiello is correct, and that the district court's decision is in error.
The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in the opinion below. The sole issue for our review is whether punitive damages can be recovered for a breach of contract or for the conversion of real property. The facts alleged by Hanna to support such a recovery begin after Hanna had paid in full for two lots under an installment land sales contract with petitioner's predecessor (for convenience, 'petitioner'). At that time Hanna was entitled to a deed by the terms of his contract. Instead of providing a deed, petitioner offered to exchange Hanna's lots for two others owned by petitioner in the same land subdivision. At the time of the offer Hanna was neither advised nor aware that petitioner had begun the construction of a golf course on his lots. Nonetheless, Hanna refused the exchange offer and demanded a deed to the original lots. When petitioner continued in its refusal to issue Hanna a deed, Hanna discovered the motive for petitioner's exchange offer. Hanna then filed suit seeking specific performance and, if not granted, both compensatory and punitive damages.
During the course of the trial court action, Hanna abandoned his demand for specific performance and agreed to accept monetary relief. The trial court subsequently entered an order limiting recovery to compensatory damages. On appeal of that decision the district Court disagreed and reversed, holding that Hanna's complaint not only asserted a bad faith breach of contract but also the independent tort of intentional, willful conversion of the property. 2 Based on the asserted bad faith breach of contract, the district court held that punitive damages would not be foreclosed where the complaint alleges an intentional conversion of property. We disagree.
Both parties agree that real property cannot be the subject of conversion, 3 but Hanna asks that we disregard the district court's language and look to its conclusion that punitive damages are recoverable. Neither approach warrants affirmance, however. Petitioner may have done something on or to Hanna's real property, but the land was not in fact or in law 'converted' because it was still available to Hanna through an action for specific performance. Hanna indicated a desire to pursue that remedy when he brought suit on that basis, but he subsequently abandoned that cause of action and agreed to accept compensatory damages for contract breach. His election foreclosed the 'penalty' to petitioner of having to convey Hanna's land with petitioner's golf course on it.
Treating the district court's finding of 'conversion' as an assertion that the tort of fraud and deceit is spelled out in the complaint, we still find no basis for recovery either in law 4 or in fact. The general rule is that a breach of contract cannot be converted into a tort merely by allegations of malice. 5 Nothing in the facts of this case suggests a reason to depart from that rule.
In an action for fraud and deceit plaintiff must allege (1) that defendant made a representation on which plaintiff was meant to act, (2) that the representation was false and defendant knew that fact, and (3) that plaintiff relied on the representation to his injury. 6 All three elements must appear with reasonable certainty in plaintiff's complaint. 7 The only specific acts of deceit which Hanna attributes to respondent are the construction of a golf course on his lots and the offer to exchange those lots for two others. The former was not an affirmative, false representation to Hanna although it affected his property without his knowledge. 8 The latter was not a false representation and, because it was never accepted, obviously was not relied upon to Hanna's detriment. 9 Thus, although Hanna's contract was perhaps flagrantly breached, the legal elements of tortious fraud and deceit are wholly absent from his complaint.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is reversed, the trial court's order rejecting a recovery of punitive damages is reinstated, and Hanna's claim for punitive damages is dismissed. 10
I would discharge the writ of certiorari for lack of conflict necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction and let stand the decision of the District Court reversing the trial court and allowing the jury to consider punitive damages.
The majority finds conflict with Associated Heavy Equipment Schools, Inc. v. Masiello, 219 So.2d 465 (Fla.App.1969). There the District Court held that punitive damages cannot be assessed for simple breach of contract, and with that principle of law I cannot quarrel. Nor can I disagree with the majority that real property cannot be the subject of conversion. But citing this Court's opinion in Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Inc., 94 So.2d 854 (Fla.1957), the District Court in Masiello said:
Based upon that statement of law and the facts appearing in the opinion of the District Court and the opinion of the majority Sub judice, I find no conflict or error with the decision of the District Court.
As stated by the District Court herein, the only question for our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. U.S. Home Corp.
...contract" will not support punitive damages. Splitt v. Deltona Corp., 662 F.2d 1142, 1147 (5th Cir.1981); American International Land Corporation v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975). Brod concedes that, under Florida law, proof of an intentional tort by itself cannot support an award for pun......
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc.
...the general rule that a breach of contract cannot be converted into a tort merely by allegations of malice. American International Land Corporation v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975); Days v. Florida E.C.R. Co., 165 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Nothing in the facts of this case suggests a ......
-
Tri-State Judicial Services, Inc. v. Markowitz
...false and defendant knew that fact, and (3) that plaintiff relied on the representation to his injury." American International Land Corporation v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567 (Sup.Ct.1976) (citing Mizell v. Upchurch, 46 Fla. 443, 35 So. 9 (1903)). Applying the specificity requirement of Rule 9(b),......
-
Electronic Sec. Systems Corp. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co.
...state a cause of action. A breach of contract cannot be converted into a tort merely by allegations of malice. American International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975); Days v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 165 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). We find the trial court properly dis......
-
Fraud
...WL 805951, *4 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022). 2. Lance v. Wade , 457 So.2d 1008, 1011 (Fla. 1984). 3. American International Land Corp. v. Hanna , 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla. 1975). 4. Joiner v. McCullers , 28 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla. 1947). 5. Mizell v. Upchurch , 35 So. 9, 12 (1903). §8:10.1.1 Elements of......
-
Business & commercial cases
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1980). 8. Real Property: Real property cannot be the subject of conversion. American International Land Corp. v. Hanna , 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla. 1975). §4:80.5 Related Matters 1. Civil Theft: See §812.035, Florida Statutes, and chapter 772, Florida Statutes (Civil Remedies fo......