Medel v. Republic Nat. Bank of Miami, s. 77-2546
| Citation | 365 So.2d 782 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 77-2546,77-2592 and 77-2593,77-2591,s. 77-2546 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Rogelio MEDEL, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a national banking corporation, Robert Paul, Burton A. Landy, Stanley Arthur Beiley and James E. Yacos, d/b/a Paul, Landy, Beiley & Yacos, a partnership, and Michael Striar, Appellees. |
Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega, Jepeway, August, Gassen & Pohlig and Louis M. Jepeway, Miami, for appellant.
Knight, Peters, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn and Jackson L. Peters, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellees.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ.
The appellant, Rogelio Medel, filed suit for compensatory and punitive damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion against the Republic National Bank of Miami, the law firm of Paul, Landy, Beiley & Yacos, and Michael Striar, an attorney employed by that law firm. It is apparent from all the allegations in the complaint that it is Attorney Striar's actions which are the basis of the claim for damages and that the claimed liability of the Republic National Bank and the law firm is through the application of the rule that a principal is liable for the acts of an agent.
Plaintiff Medel has brought these consolidated appeals which present a single point for our determination:
"Whether an attorney representing a judgment creditor, as well as his employer and principal, is liable for punitive damages where he does not utilize the prescribed methods to collect on the judgment, and instead by deceit and subterfuge gains entry and obtains the judgment debtor's personal property causing a breach of the peace?"
The defendants have restated the point so that it urges "undisputed evidence" that the attorney acted under "a bona fide and reasonable belief" that self-help was sanctioned under Florida law. But in either case, the question is whether the trial judge correctly determined that punitive damages were not allowable in this case.
These appeals arise from several orders in the same cause, all of which had the same effect insofar as the law of the case is concerned. The operative orders were (1) an order striking a claim for punitive damages and (2) an order granting defendants a partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. Although there are some factual issues, which will be discussed later, the evidentiary matters before the trial judge at the time of the entry of the partial summary judgment present a fairly clear picture of Mr. Striar's activity on behalf of the law firm and the firm's client, the Republic National Bank.
Republic lent money to San Martin, Inc. The principal, Mario Perez, signed a collateral installment note and he and plaintiff Medel also signed guarantees. After the loan became delinquent, the matter was turned over to Paul, Landy, Beiley & Yacos (the Bank's law firm) for collection. The correspondence advised the attorneys that Medel was a good customer of the Bank and instructed them to contact him prior to taking any action.
Thereafter, the Bank, through its counsel, Paul, Landy, Beiley & Yacos, filed suit against San Martin, Inc., Mario Perez and Medel. Default judgment was entered against these defendants and a final judgment was entered in favor of the Bank in the sum of $11,530.17.
The lawyer who handled the suit on behalf of the Bank against defendants turned the file over to Michael Striar sometime in December, 1975. Subsequently, Striar talked with the lawyer approximately three times regarding the use of self-help to obtain satisfaction of the judgment. Striar was advised that the replevin statute and the Uniform Commercial Code allowed for self-help and that self-help had been used by a number of the firm's clients on several occasions under the applicable replevin statute to repossess items that were security for a debt.
Paul, Landy, Beiley & Yacos also represented Florida Lumber Company in a suit against Roda Enterprises, Inc. Medel was president and resident agent for Roda. Medel was noticed for a deposition in that case. A new date was arranged for Medel's deposition. Striar testified that it was his understanding that Medel's attorney agreed to the rescheduling of Medel's deposition for Thursday, April 22, 1976. He arranged for a court reporter and an interpreter.
When Striar arrived at Medel's office at approximately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, AUTO-OWNERS
...in which a party is ultimately unsuccessful in his resort to the court in pursuit of a legal remedy. Cf., Medel v. Republic Nat. Bank of Miami, 365 So.2d 782, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., 376 So.2d 75 (Fla.1979). The drastic sanction of punitive damages is particularly inappropriate ......
- Republic National Bank of Miami v. Medel
- Howard v. State, 78-1582
-
9-5 Punitive Damages
...v. Feminist Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 416 So. 2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1982).[47] Medel v. Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami, 365 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1979).[48] Medel v. Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami, 365 So. 2d 782, 784-85 (F......