City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms
| Decision Date | 28 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1177,87-1177 |
| Citation | 526 So.2d 119,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1042 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1042 CITY OF CARS, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Margie Jean SIMMS, etc., et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maxwell W. Wells, Jr., of Wells & Morrison, P.A., Orlando, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Steven C. Blinn of Robert D. Melton, P.A., Orlando, for appellees/cross-appellants.
A boyfriend and his girlfriend (appellee) jointly bought a car from a used car dealer (appellant) with a purchase money balance payable weekly and secured by the car as collateral. The address of the residence of the couple was noted on the car dealer's payment card. The couple then moved their place of residence, notifying the post office of the change but not notifying the car dealer of their new address. Next, the girlfriend moved out, leaving the boyfriend and the car at the new address. The boyfriend got a new girlfriend and then died. The old girlfriend, seeing the new girlfriend driving the car, called the police who made the new girlfriend return the car to the residence of the deceased boyfriend. At the suggestion of the police, the girlfriend went to the car dealer for their help in recovering possession of the car for her benefit. Payments were delinquent and approximately $1,580 balance was due on the car. The girlfriend testified she provided her new address to the car dealer and offered to make payment current, and was told to wait until the car had been repossessed.
The car dealer acquired possession of the car and wrote a letter to the purchasing couple notifying them of the repossession and the dealer's intent to sell the car as collateral for the balance due. The letter was mailed to the old address on the payment card, forwarded by the post office to the couple's new address and then returned to the car dealer. There was no further contact by the girlfriend with the car dealer or the car dealer with the girlfriend until after the car dealer resold the car to a third person.
The girlfriend sued the car dealer for count I, common law fraud; count II, conversion (or civil theft under § 812.035(7), Florida Statutes (1985)); count III, unfair or deceptive trade practices (§ 501.204, et seq., Florida Statutes); count IV, violation of section 320.27, Florida Statutes; count V, breach of contract; and count VI, violation of Uniform Commercial Code section 679.502(2), Florida Statutes. The jury found for the plaintiff as follows: count II, civil theft--$1,500 compensatory damages, $40,000 punitive damages; as to count II, conversion--$1,500 compensatory damages, $40,000 punitive damages; and as to count III, unfair trade practices--$1,500 compensatory damages. The trial court entered judgment for $4,500, being the $1,500 compensatory damages for conversion tripled under the civil theft statute (§ 812.035(7), Fla.Stat.), prejudgment interest of $1,087.13, punitive damages of $40,000, costs of $1,032.85 for a total of $46,619.78. The trial court also reserved jurisdiction to award attorney's fees. The car dealer appeals.
While the caption of count II of the complaint is entitled "Count II--CONVERSION," the body states in paragraph 15 that this count is a cause of action pursuant to section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes. Allegations of that count in paragraph 17 essentially alleged a conversion, and paragraph 19 characterizes that conversion as having been done willfully, wantonly, and maliciously and/or done in gross and reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights. The prayer in count II is for treble damages under section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes, punitive damages, attorney's fees, etc. There is no separate count in the complaint based on a cause of action for conversion.
There is a substantive difference between a civil cause of action for conversion and for a theft...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1994), i.e. a tort may lie even if the act is accomplished without specific wrongful mental intent. City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms, 526 So.2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988). Thus, the court concludes that the initial existence of probable cause to sustain......
-
U.S. v. Bailey
...mistaken belief that he had a right to possession." Seymour v. Adams, 638 So.2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms, 526 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988) ("Any act of a person in asserting a right of dominion over a chattel which i......
-
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams
...chattel which is inconsistent with the right of the owner and deprives the owner of the right of possession.” City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms, 526 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 5th DCA). By committing the Social Engineering Scheme as described above, the Court find that Adams deprived TracFone of posses......
-
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1994), i.e. a tort may lie even if the act is accomplished without specific wrongful mental intent. City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms, 526 So.2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1988). Thus, the court concludes that the initial existence of probable cause to sustain......
-
Intentional torts
...§ 772.11 (2014) (Current through the 2018 Second Regular Session of the 25th Legislature). See Also 1. City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms , 526 So.2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied , 534 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1988). 2. Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. , 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). ......
-
Business & commercial cases
...a conversion, whether the act is accomplished with, or without, any specific mental intent. Source City of Cars, Inc. v. Simms , 526 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied , 534 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1988). See Also 1. Pain Care First of Orlando, LLC v. Edwards , 84 So. 3d 351 (Fla. Dist......