Rogers v. Mitzi
| Decision Date | 15 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 89-2577,90-263,s. 89-2577 |
| Citation | 584 So.2d 1092 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2162 Thomas R. ROGERS, Appellant, v. John J. MITZI and Francis J. Gorman, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jodi R. Lazar of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, Orlando, for appellant.
James J. Files of Cloninger and Files, Oviedo, for appellees.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION
We grant rehearing pursuant to the timely motion filed by appellees, withdraw the prior opinion, and issue the following in its place.
Appellant/defendant below Thomas R. Rogers brings this consolidated appeal from the final judgment entered in favor of appellees/plaintiffs below John J. Mitzi and Francis J. Gorman following a non-jury trial. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The parties in this case were partners in various real estate investments by virtue of two partnership agreements and a trust agreement, all of which were drafted by Rogers. Mitzi and Gorman contributed cash to the partnerships while Rogers contributed a combination of cash, management and legal services, and improvements to the investment property. Mitzi and Gorman brought an action against Rogers alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, conversion, and sale of unregistered securities. The trial court found Rogers guilty of constructive fraud and awarded compensatory damages to Mitzi and Gorman in amounts equal to their respective cash investments, and punitive damages.
In case number 89-2577 Rogers appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to recuse. Finding no merit in the issue raised by Rogers we affirm the order of the trial court.
In case number 90-263 Rogers appeals the final order of the trial court finding Rogers guilty of constructive fraud. Rogers argues that the trial court erred in finding constructive fraud because this theory was not properly pled in the plaintiffs' complaint. This argument lacks merit. The theory of constructive fraud is plead in count two of the fourth amended complaint which alleges breach of fiduciary duty, as that count also alleges that Rogers' breach of fiduciary duty was the equivalent of fraud. A constructive fraud is deemed to exist where a duty under a confidential or fiduciary relationship has been abused. Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243 (Fla.1920); Allie v. Ionata, 466 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Harrell v. Bransen, 344 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), rev. denied, 353 So.2d 675 (Fla.1977). We further hold that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's finding of constructive fraud.
However, the evidence does not support the award of damages entered by the trial court. The trial court awarded damages based essentially upon the theory of rescission, yet there is no showing that monetary damages would not have sufficed and no party asked for rescission. Laniewicz v. Rutenberg Construction Company, 580 So.2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Supple v. Supple, 347 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Mitzi and Gorman are entitled to compensatory damages based upon the difference between what Rogers actually contributed as capital in cash or property 1 to the RMG Partnership and the $15,000 which he was obligated to contribute under the RMG Partnership Agreement. Additionally, Mitzi and Gorman are entitled to damages based upon their respective interests in the RMG partnership for the purchase by Rogers individually of Moorings Unit 101. Rogers improperly reduced his interest in the RMG partnership by $12,650 to represent the $12,650 deposit that the partnership had put down on Moorings Unit 101.
Mitzi and Gorman are also entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.
...a promise does not constitute fraud, unless the bank intended not to perform the contract at the time it was entered. Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 598 So.2d 77 (Fla.1992); National Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. Aeroserv Int'l, Inc., 544 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d ......
-
SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC
...fraud is deemed to exist where a duty under a confidential or fiduciary relationship has been abused.” Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (citing, inter alia, Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243 (1920)). SFM's tort claims rested on a threefold theory of wrongdo......
-
Amoco Oil Co. v. Gomez
...First Comm. Corp., 839 F.Supp. 830 (M.D.Fla.1993); Beers v. Beers, 724 So.2d 109, 116-17 (Fla.App. 5th DCA 1999); Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). This rule applies in this case, where the facts alleged by Gomez to support her breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulen......
-
Ruiz v. Ringling Coll. of Art & Design
...relationship. See Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc., 390 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1179 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see also Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 45 (Fla. 1920) (“Constructive fraud is simply a term applied to a great variet......
-
Fraud and Misrepresentation
...best compensate the plaintiff). 89. Goehring v. Chapman Univ., 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39, 47-49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). 90. Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); Reid v. Moskovitz, 208 Cal. App. 3d 29, 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); Crowley v. Global Realty, 474 A.2d 1056, 10......
-
Fraud
...or where an unconscionable advantage has been taken. See Beers v. Beers , 724 So.2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) citing Rogers v. Mitzi , 584 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Constructive fraud may be based on a misrepresentation or concealment, or the fraud may consist of taking an improper adva......
-
Fraud and Misrepresentation
...17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39, 47-49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). 97. Reid v. Moskovitz, 208 Cal. App. 3d 29, 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); Rogers v. Mitzi, 584 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); Crowley v. Global Realty, Inc., 474 A.2d 1056, 1058 (N.H. 1984); cf . Indosuez v. Barclays Bank PLC, 580 N......