World Cellphones Distribs. Corp. v. De Surinaamsche Bank, N.V.
| Decision Date | 15 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3D22-203 |
| Parties | World Cellphones Distributors Corp., etc., et al., Appellants, v. De Surinaamsche Bank, N.V., etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 19-9386 Carlos Guzman, Judge.
Sordo & Associates, P.A., and Cesar R. Sordo, for appellants.
Maeder Infantolino, LLC, and Dayna Maeder and Camille Infantolino (Jupiter), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
World Cellphones Distributors Corp. ("World Cellphones") and Ileana Calderon (collectively, "Appellants") appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of De Surinaamsche Bank, N.V ("DSB") on DSB's claims of conversion, civil theft, and unjust enrichment. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment as it pertains to DSB's claim of conversion because Appellants stipulated to the key facts that establish their liability as a matter of law. We reverse, however, as to DSB's claim of civil theft because the record reflects a lack of clear and convincing evidence regarding the felonious intent necessary to establish Appellants' liability.[1] Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on the civil theft claim.
The underlying action arose from an erroneous duplicative wire transfer sent by DSB to World Cellphones. DSB alleged in its Complaint that in December 2017, Prestige Imports, N.V., a DSB business banking customer, initiated a payment order containing international wire transfer instructions. The wire transfer served as payment for wholesale goods Prestige purchased from World Cellphones, which totaled $119,490.00.
According to the payment order, DSB was to transfer $119,490.00 from Prestige's account at DSB into World Cellphones' account at Regions Bank. This initial wire transfer was successfully executed on December 17, 2017 and World Cellphones' account at Regions Bank was credited in the amount of $119,490.00. On December 18, 2017 Prestige notified DSB of an error on the international wire transfer request, stating that Regions Bank was the incorrect beneficiary bank, that the correct beneficiary bank was Bank of America, and that the funds should have been credited into World Cellphones' account at Bank of America.
Based on Prestige's notification, DSB immediately recalled the initial wire transfer and initiated wire transfer instructions for the deposit of funds into World Cellphones' account at Bank of America. This second wire transfer was successfully executed on December 19, 2017, and World Cellphones' account at Bank of America was credited in the amount of $119,490.00.
About a month later, DSB discovered that the initial wire transfer was never successfully recalled and reached out to Regions Bank. Regions Bank responded and confirmed a credit to World Cellphones' account in the amount of $119,490.00 on December 17, 2017, but advised it was unable to credit back the funds because the account was closed on December 20 2017. At DSB's request, Bank of America, as beneficiary bank for the second wire transfer, contacted World Cellphones' account owner, Ileana Calderon, notifying her of the duplicative wire transfer and requesting that funds be credited back to DSB's account. Ms. Calderon refused debit authority, stating that World Cellphones had already provided Prestige with goods.
Appellants filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses and admitted receiving various demands from DSB explaining the banking error and requesting return of the duplicate wire transfer. Appellants nevertheless alleged in their affirmative defenses that the funds received from DSB were sent on behalf of Prestige and were used by Prestige to purchase merchandise from World Cellphones. Appellants further alleged, in pertinent part, that World Cellphones lacked intent to defraud and that there was no cause of action against Ms. Calderon while acting in her corporate capacity.
On November 2, 2020, DSB moved for summary judgment and argued it was undisputed that Appellants received duplicate wire transfers in the amount of $119,490.00 and that they tortiously and inequitably kept both amounts despite having knowledge that DSB was the rightful owner of the duplicate funds. DSB also argued that Ms. Calderon personally participated in the tortious and inequitable conduct, having retained and converted DSB's funds and then refused debit authority for the return of the funds. Among other things, DSB attached to its motion for summary judgment electronic correspondences reflecting the information received from Regions Bank stating that the initial wire transfer could not be recalled because the account had been closed and the account balance had been issued to the account owner, and the information received from Bank of America stating that Ms. Calderon had refused to give debit authorization for return of the second wire transfer because "she already gave merchandise to the client." DSB did not submit any affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment.
Appellants did not file a written response in opposition to DSB's motion for summary judgment, but filed an affidavit of World Cellphones' Vice President, Alex Calderon, on December 31, 2020. In his affidavit, Mr. Calderon stated that Prestige and a related company, Flex Wholesale &Retail, N.V. ("Flex"), both owned and operated by Richanand Dassasingh, were customers of World Cellphones and that between December 15, 2017 and January 29, 2018 World Cellphones sold to Prestige and Flex a total of $366,057.00 in products. Mr. Calderon attested to receiving the two wire transfers, each for $119,490.00, from Prestige and stated that at the direction of Mr. Dassasingh the two wire transfers were applied to the invoices due from Flex. Mr. Calderon further stated that Ms. Calderon "had absolutely nothing to do with any transactions of either Prestige and Flex as they [were] both [Mr. Calderon's] customer and [he] was the person handling those accounts."
On January 5, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on DSB's motion for summary judgment. During the hearing Appellants expressly stated that they did not dispute the fact that World Cellphones received duplicate wire transfers of $119,490.00 and that Ms. Calderon refused debit authority for a return of the duplicate wire transfer. Appellants' position, essentially, was that the wire transfers had been credited to Prestige and Flex's accounts for goods provided to them. DSB argued the duplicate wire transfer did not belong to Prestige but rather DSB, that DSB advised World Cellphones of this and demanded the return of its money, and that World Cellphones refused to return the funds and kept the funds.
On February 17, 2021, the trial court issued its Order granting DSB's motion for summary judgment. The trial court found it was undisputed by the parties that a banking error occurred; that DSB failed to successfully recall the initial wire transfer; that DSB's account remained debited in the amount of $119,490.00; that among the invoices produced by World Cellphones there was only one invoice to Prestige in the amount of $119,490.00; that World Cellphones received two wire transfers, each in the amount of $119,490.00; that Ms. Calderon was the owner and authorized individual on World Cellphones' Regions Bank and Bank of America accounts; that Ms. Calderon had knowledge of the banking error and refused debit authority to return the funds; that World Cellphones applied the funds to Flex's invoices; and that upon DSB's written demands, World Cellphones and Ms. Calderon failed to return the duplicate funds based on World Cellphones' application of the funds to Flex's invoices.
DSB moved for entry of final judgment after the trial court granted its motion for summary judgment and attached an...
To continue reading
Request your trial