Barbe v. Villeneuve

• Decision Date: 16 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 68577,68577
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 181 Clarence BARBE, III, Petitioner, v. Pierre VILLENEUVE, etc., et al., Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1331

505 So.2d 1331

12 Fla. L. Weekly 181

Clarence BARBE, III, Petitioner, v. Pierre VILLENEUVE, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 68577.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1987.

L. Murray Fitzhugh, P.A., Homosassa, and Larry Klein and John Beranek of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Martha Snedaker-Eskuchen of the Law Offices of Martha A. Snedaker, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondents.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

We have for review Villeneuve v. Atlas Yacht Sales, Inc., 483 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which expressly and directly conflicts with language this Court utilized in Junction Bit & Tool Co. v. Village Apartments, Inc., 262 So.2d 659 (Fla.1972). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. The issue in this case is whether a litigant who receives a default judgment for damages for theft of the purchase price of a yacht may subsequently obtain possession of the same vessel in a replevin action when the initial judgment remains unsatisfied. Because these two remedies necessarily arise from inconsistent factual scenarios, we hold that the entry of the default judgment precludes the inconsistent award of title to the yacht. Therefore, we approve the decision of the district court.

Clarence Barbe, III, purchased for $45,000 a yacht, the "Helen Jane IV," from Atlas Yacht Sales, Inc. (Atlas), a yacht brokerage company. Atlas failed to deliver clear title to this yacht, however, and the vessel's true owner, whose signature had been forged on the yacht sales contract, ultimately repossessed the vessel. In order to avoid a lawsuit following this repossession, Ernie Tashea, president of Atlas, transferred to Barbe title to a second yacht, the "Gypsy VI." Barbe subsequently spent $5,000 in fix-up costs on the vessel. When Barbe attempted to take possession of the Gypsy VI, however, Pierre Villeneuve claimed ownership. Villeneuve was president and sole stockholder of Lehman Manufacturing (Canada), Ltd., a marine engine distributor and boat builder. Although the facts are in dispute as to the relationship of Villeneuve and Atlas, Villeneuve apparently served as either an employee of Atlas or a representative of Atlas in Canada. Villeneuve contended that he had put the title in Atlas' name only to facilitate an eventual sale. Despite this claim, Barbe took possession of the yacht.

Villeneuve and his corporation subsequently commenced an action to recover the yacht. Barbe counterclaimed to retain possession and title. Additionally, Barbe cross-claimed, pursuant to section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981), against Tashea and Atlas for theft of the purchase price. When Tashea failed to respond to the cross-claim, Barbe moved for a default judgment. Pursuant to section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes (1981), Barbe received final judgment for treble damages in the amount of $150,000 as well as attorney's fees in the amount of $17,500. Thereafter, Tashea apparently fled, leaving no assets behind. Barbe subsequently prevailed on the complaint and counterclaim and was awarded the Gypsy VI as well as $2,715 in loss of use damages. The parties thereafter stipulated that Villeneuve would pay $19,000 in attorney's fees to Barbe, and the trial court entered an order to that effect. On appeal the district court reversed the judgment on the complaint and counterclaim, ruling that the claim for recovery of title to the yacht was inconsistent with a money judgment for theft of the purchase price and would allow Barbe a double recovery.

Barbe contends that obtaining the treble damage award did not bar the later award of title to the Gypsy VI because the damage award is uncollectable. We cannot agree. The election of remedies doctrine is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and operates on the theory that a party electing one course of action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course. Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 426, 168 So. 644, 646 (1936); Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, 211 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a double recovery for the same wrong. United States v. Weiss Pollution Control Corp., 532 F.2d 1009, 1012 (5th Cir.1976); Villeneuve, 483 So.2d at 69. Under Florida law, however, the election of remedies doctrine applies only where the remedies in question are coexistent and inconsistent. Williams, 124 Fla. at 426, 168 So. at 646; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 23, 160 So. 483, 484 (1935); American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 122, 47 So. 942, 944 (1908); Klondike, Inc., 211 So.2d at 42-43; Cooley v. Rahilly, 200 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So.2d 690 (Fla.1967). As this Court previously stated in American Process Co.:

If the allegations of facts necessary to support one remedy are substantially inconsistent with those necessary to support the other, then the adoption of one remedy waives the right to the other. A party will not be permitted to enforce wholly inconsistent demands respecting the same right[s]. It is not permissible to both approbate and reprobate in asserting the same right in the courts.... Where the law affords several distinct, but not inconsistent, remedies for the enforcement of a right, the mere election or choice to pursue one of such remedies does not operate as a waiver of the right to pursue the other remedies. In order to operate as a waiver or estoppel, the election must be between coexistent and inconsistent remedies.... If more than one remedy exists, but they are not inconsistent, only a full satisfaction of the right asserted will estop the plaintiff from pursuing other consistent remedies. All consistent remedies may in general be pursued concurrently even to final adjudication; but the satisfaction of the claim by one remedy puts an end to the other remedies.

56 Fla. at 122-23, 47 So. at 944 (citations omitted). See Matthews v. Matthews, 133 So.2d 91, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). As the above-quoted language illustrates, for one remedy to bar another remedy on grounds of inconsistency they must proceed from opposite and irreconcilable claims of right and must be so inconsistent that a party could not logically follow one without renouncing the other. Kl...