Anchor Sav. Bank v. Berlin, 83-577
| Decision Date | 22 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-577,83-577 |
| Citation | 445 So.2d 675 |
| Parties | ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, Appellant, v. Bertha BERLIN and Bank of Florida In St. Petersburg, a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce Zeidel of Cohen, Scherer & Cohn, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.
Sara Bresky Blumberg of Dubiner & Blumberg, West Palm Beach, for appellee--Berlin.
James H. Ryan of Gary, Dytrych & Ryan, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellee--Bank of Florida in St. Petersburg.
Anchor Savings Bank appeals from a final judgment which denied its claim for unjust enrichment resulting from a double payment of interest on a certificate of deposit.
Briefly stated, appellant issued a certificate of deposit to appellee, Bertha Berlin (Berlin), who in turn assigned the certificate to appellee, Bank of Florida in St. Petersburg (Bank of Florida). Berlin made the assignment to secure a loan made by the Bank of Florida to her son's corporation, Berneil Associates, Inc. Appellant continued paying interest on the certificate to Berlin's passbook account.
Approximately twenty months later, Berneil Associates, Inc. defaulted on its loan. The Bank of Florida delivered a collection notice wherein it demanded the balance of the certificate of deposit plus accrued interest. Appellant discovered it had already paid interest on the account to Berlin, but relying on the assignment and the collection notice sent by Bank of Florida, it honored the collection notice and paid the proceeds of the certificate plus accrued interest. This payment resulted in a second payment of interest.
Appellant filed suit against Berlin and the Bank of Florida claiming that its double payment of interest unjustly enriched either Berlin or the Bank of Florida. Berlin and the Bank of Florida cross-claimed against each other and the Bank of Florida counterclaimed against appellant. After a nonjury trial, the court denied the claims for relief. 1
Appellant contends here, as it did in the trial court, that its double payment of interest resulted in unjust enrichment to one of the recipients and that it is entitled to equitable relief. We agree.
Appellant argues that it inadvertently paid interest to Berlin and that it made the second payment of interest to the Bank of Florida in accordance with the assignment and collection notice. Berlin asserts she properly received the interest based on an agreement between her and the Bank of Florida that she would continue to receive the interest from the certificate while it was pledged to secure her son's loan. The Bank of Florida denies this agreement and relies on the documents to establish its entitlement to the interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Kashi Co., Case No. 12–21678–CIV.
...State Bank of Fort Meade v. Singletary, 124 Fla. 770, 169 So. 407, 408 (1936) (emphasis added); see also Anchor Sav. Bank v. Berlin, 445 So.2d 675, 676 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) ; Ferguson v. Cotler, 382 So.2d 1315, 1316 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants' argume......
-
Schimmel v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
...factual statement of this case, a directed verdict for the plaintiff on its claim below was legally required. Anchor Savings Bank v. Berlin, 445 So.2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The post-trial order under review is also affirmed insofar as it grants a renewed motion for directed verdict made ......
-
In re Barry, Bankruptcy No. 92-11140-BKC-AJC. Adv. No. 94-0010-BKC-AJC-A.
...so paid should be detained from the payor on his discovery of the mistake and demand for the money's return." Anchor Savings Bank v. Berlin, 445 So.2d 675 (Fla.Dist.1984), citing, Ferguson, In this case, the Debtor has demonstrated no cogent reason why he ought to be permitted to retain the......