Foley v. Dick
| Decision Date | 26 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1220,82-1220 |
| Parties | Rick FOLEY, Appellant, v. Robert H. DICK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George Browning, III, Sarasota, and James R. Dirmann of Dirmann & Scott, Sarasota, for appellant.
Terence Matthews, Bradenton, for appellee.
Foley sued Dick for conversion. The court directed a verdict against him on his claim for punitive damages, but the jury awarded him compensatory damages of $2,650. Dissatisfied with the amount of his judgment, Foley brings this appeal.
Since Foley argues that the court should have submitted his punitive damage claim to the jury, we will state the evidence in the light most favorable to Foley. Foley, a Canadian citizen, was arrested in Florida on Canadian charges of possession of a stolen automobile and possession of stolen credit cards. Dick, a Florida attorney, consulted with Foley at the jail. To secure legal representation Foley instructed a friend to give Dick, as collateral, a diamond ring which Foley had won in a golf tournament. A few days later, while still incarcerated, Foley was charged with attempted escape and criminal mischief. Foley testified that Dick visited him in the jail once after these new charges were filed, but that Dick did not represent him concerning these charges and only discussed with him the payment of Dick's fee. Shortly thereafter, Foley's Canadian lawyer became involved and secured a new Florida lawyer to take Dick's place. Foley then requested Dick to return the ring to him. Although acknowledging that he no longer represented Foley, Dick refused to do so, stating that he would have to consult his records in order to determine his fee for the services rendered prior to the termination of his employment.
Subsequently, Dick sent a letter to Foley's Canadian lawyer indicating that after calculating the time spent on Foley's case he felt that a fee of $250 for professional services and costs would be reasonable. The letter stated that Dick was holding the diamond ring as collateral and that he would release it upon payment of his fee. Foley's brother sent Dick the $250, but Dick declined to return the ring. By this time Foley had been released and returned to Canada. Dick told Foley on the telephone that he needed another $300 for fees and costs for the work he had done before he would return the ring. Foley later sent him a check for $300, but Dick returned it with the notation that the payment had not been made within a reasonable time. When Foley called Dick about this, Dick told him that because of Foley's delay he had sold the ring to make up the difference in what Foley owed him. Thereafter, Dick failed to respond to letters from Foley and his Canadian counsel.
Dick testified that the ring, which Foley told him was worth $1,000, was given to him as part of his fee. He said that his letter advising that his fee would be $250 referred only to his services in connection with the attempted escape and criminal mischief charges. He produced a "receipt" signed by Foley and Dick which stated that a diamond ring worth $1,000 constituted a retainer on a $3,000 fee for representation on criminal charges. Dick did not recall if he gave Foley a copy of this document. Foley said that when he signed the receipt it did not contain the reference to the $3,000 fee. Dick admitted telling Foley that he no longer had the ring, but he nevertheless produced it at the trial.
In suits for conversion, punitive damages are allowable where the circumstances surrounding the conversion are such as to show fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence, or oppression, such gross negligence as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bailey
...negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others") (internal citations and quotations omitted); Foley v. Dick, 436 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983) (accord). In order to establish a claim of civil theft, a plaintiff must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, t......
-
Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha
...who pays to the owner the value of the property converted becomes, by operation of law, the owner of the property. See, Foley v. Dick, 436 So.2d 139 (Fla.App.1983); Mason v. Schumacher, 231 Neb. 929, 439 N.W.2d 61 (1989). To determine what interests FNBO thereby acquired, it is necessary to......
-
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Sorota
...as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others, or where the wrong partakes of a criminal character." Foley v. Dick, 436 So. 2d 139, 141 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983)). The Complaint, however, explicitly alleges that the conversion was "willful, malicious, and intentionally designed to har......
-
Mullin v. Dzikowski, 99-8085.
...the measure of damages for conversion is the fair market value of the converted property at the time of conversion. Foley v. Dick, 436 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). Mullin argues that because the leasehold interest was of little or no value to the Debtor at the time of the conversi......