Stutzke v. Kohl

• Decision Date: 06 March 1991
• Docket Number: 90-0644,Nos. 90-0073,s. 90-0073
• Citation: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 637,576 So.2d 356
• Parties: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 637 Michael STUTZKE, Appellant, v. Sidney KOHL and David L. Walker, General Partners d/b/a Deerfield Groves Partnership, Graves Brothers Company, a Florida corporation, and Indian River Citrus Sales, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. Michael STUTZKE, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. D.G.C. LIQUIDATION COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, formerly known as Deerfield Grove Company, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 356

576 So.2d 356

16 Fla. L. Weekly 637

Michael STUTZKE, Appellant, v. Sidney KOHL and David L. Walker, General Partners d/b/a Deerfield Groves Partnership, Graves Brothers Company, a Florida corporation, and Indian River Citrus Sales, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

Michael STUTZKE, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. D.G.C. LIQUIDATION COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, formerly known as Deerfield Grove Company, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

Nos. 90-0073, 90-0644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

March 6, 1991.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1991.

Michael O'Haire of Smith, O'Haire, Quinn & Garris, Vero Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

Larry Klein and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & Lloyd, Fort Pierce, for appellees-Sidney Kohl, David L. Walker, Deerfield Groves Partnership, Graves Bros. Co. and Indian River Citrus Sales, Inc.

Kevin S. Doty of Moss, Henderson, Van Gaasbeck, Blanton & Koval, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant-D.G.C. Liquidation Co.

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate case numbers 90-0073 and 90-0644.

Appellant, Michael Stutzke (hereinafter "Stutzke"), owned a retail fruit gift shop in Palm Beach County. Deerfield Groves Company (now known as DGC Liquidation Company, Inc.) (hereinafter "DGC"), produced and marketed a trademarked brand of grapefruit. Stutzke entered into an oral agreement with DGC for the exclusive right to sell the "Orchid" grapefruit in South Florida. Less than a year later, DGC entered into a written agreement with Sidney Kohl and David Walker for the sale of all DGC assets. Kohl and Walker then created Deerfield Groves Partnership (hereinafter "DGP") for the operation of the groves and fruit business. DGP then contracted with Graves Brothers Company, giving them the exclusive right to pack and sell the grapefruit. Graves Brothers Company in turn contracted with Indian River Citrus Sales, Inc., making them their marketing agent for the "Orchid" brand grapefruit.

When notified that his exclusive marketing agreement would not be honored by DGP, Stutzke filed suit claiming, inter alia, breach of contract and conversion against DGC and claiming tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship against DGP, Kohl, Walker, Graves Brothers Company and Indian River Citrus Sales, Inc. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all counts. This court reversed, determining there to be issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. See Stutzke v. D.G.C. Liquidation Company, 533 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 989 (Fla.1989).

On remand, the case was heard by a jury and the trial court then directed a verdict on the tortious interference claim in favor of DGP, Kohl, Walker, Graves Brothers Company and Indian River Citrus Sales Inc. The claims against DGC for breach of contract and conversion were submitted to the jury. The jury found that the oral agreement between Stutzke and DGC contemplated more than one year in duration, but also found that DGC's sale of its assets did not constitute a breach of that agreement. The jury found in favor of Stutzke on the conversion claim and awarded him damages of $1,700.00.

Stutzke filed these separate appeals. In case number 90-0073 Stutzke claims that the trial court erred by directing a verdict on the tortious interference claim. He argues that the facts support a cause of action for tortious interference and warrant submission to the jury. We disagree. The evidence does not support a finding of an "intentional and unjustified interference" with Stutzke's business relationship with DGC especially where the underlying agreement did not extend to DGC's successors and assigns. See generally Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So.2d 1126 (Fla.1985) (an essential element of a tortious interference claim is an intentional and unjustified interference by defendant).

In case number 90-0644 Stutzke contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial grounded upon the allegation of an...