Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in Florida
Back in February of 2007, I was forced to abandon the townhouse I was renting a room in, in Palm Beach County, FL. All of my personal property was left in the townhouse. There was no signed, written lease, but the verbal understanding was that I could rent the place for as long as I needed. As long as I paid the rent on time, and kept the place in good condition, and didn't cause any unreasonable problems, I could continue to rent the room in the townhouse. At first, I started out paying the rent monthly, but mutually agreed to switch to paying the rent weekly; it was understood that I would give my landlord reasonable notice if I was planning on moving out, and 1 week was reasonably assumed. Shortly after being forced to abandon the rental property, my landlord notified my Father that she had found someone else to rent the room, thus mitigating her losses from my inability to pay rent, and involuntarily abandoning the room, along with all of my personal property, without advanced notice (which I could not have provided, since I was as shocked as anybody). My Landlord advised my Father that if he could come over and remove all of my property from the townhouse, she would lease an air-conditioned storage unit in her name, where he could store all of my belongings. The storage facility had just opened, and was offering a special of 2-months free rent. It was agreed that my Landlord would lease the storage space in her name for the period of time that the storage space was free, that they would each have a key to the lock and full access to the unit, and that my Landlord would transfer the unit and financial responsibility into my Father's name prior to the date that the first payment would become due on the unit (it was unclear whether that was due to my Father not being able to, or her wanting to retain some form of hold, or "lien", over my personal property, "just in case". She had already told my Father that she would not hold me liable for any rent, due to my failure to give adequate notice).
About 2 weeks prior to my Father taking over the unit, I had gone with him to inspect it, to make sure everything was in good order, and to put some additional items in the unit. My Father and my Landlord spoke on a semi-regular basis, and it was understood that my Father would definately be able to take over the financial responsibility for the storage space, and place the lease agreement in his name, before the first payment was due. My Landlord sent 2 letters to my Father, as written reminders of the date that the rent on the space would be due, and she also had stated that she would no longer be responsible for the property in storage after that date, meaning she would cancel the storage space, and simply leave the property in the unit, to be disposed of by the storage company, in any matter they saw fit.
Approximately 5 days prior to the "deadline," my former Landlord contacted my Father, and told him that she had removed most of my property from the storage unit, and gave it all away to charity. We immediately went to the unit, and saw that she had indeed removed most of my property. We were shocked and furious, for obvious reasons. She told my Father that she didnt think that he was going to pay for the unit after the free period expired, so instead of just not renewing the unit after that date, and leaving my property there, she removed a majority of it, and claimed a variety of excuses - from rent that she claimed I owed, to damage that she claimed I caused, to not wanting to be responsible for any possible illegal items that may be in the unit, to simple Revenge.
We contacted the Sheriff's office in the town the townhouse was located, and the Detective who we spoke with, and gave a detailed list of items that she had taken, contacted the Landlord, who told him that she gave some of my stuff to a second-hand store, and the rest she had given to various charities, but couldnt remember the names. It was clear to me that this was a Criminal Matter, the crime being theft (or conversion), and that she was both criminally and civillaly liable. An arrest was never made, and we never got any reason or response as to why. Unfortunately, I had some personal and family issues that caused me to be unable to pursue the remedies for the loss of all of my personal property, which was valued at over $75,000, easily.
I have suffered every day from the horrible act of my former Landlord, and I fell into a bad depression, and suffered mentally for the past 3 years, but I NEED to resolve this matter. I checked the Statute of Limitations, and it appears that I am still within the 5-year time period for the crime of Grand Theft in the Second Degree, if that is what this is, and I need to find out if anybody knows how I should best handle this. I want to prosecute and get the value of my property back, if not the property itself, which I would rather have, but doubt is possible.
Please advise.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Read the following article: Then if I were you, I would pursue trible (3 times) damages and do so ASAP. Stop waiting for the sheriff - go to an attorney - they will take your case on a contingency basis with the amount you have stated is due.
Florida�s Civil Theft Statute is a powerful tool to recover damages for theft and theft related civil actions which enables the Plaintiffs to seek attorney�s fees and treble (triple) damages. However, there are some nuances in Florida Law which should be reviewed before filing an action for Civil Theft. First, the economic loss doctrine is generally a defense( with exceptions) to a claim for civil theft. Second, you will need to plead and prove specific facts seting forth the claim for civil theft to establish that there is �substantial fact or legal support� for your claim, or a Plaintiff could be liable for the Defendant�s attorney�s fees. Finally, make sure that you send the statutory notice.
The Statute (Fla. Stat. 772.11)
Fla. Stat. 772.11
1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of ss. 812.012-812.037 or s. 825.103(1) has a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney�s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Before filing an action for damages under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages under this section. If the person to whom a written demand is made complies with such demand within 30 days after receipt of the demand, that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability for the specific act of theft or exploitation by the person making the written demand. Any person who has a cause of action under this section may recover the damages allowed under this section from the parents or legal guardian of any unemancipated minor who lives with his or her parents or legal guardian and who is liable for damages under this section. Punitive damages may not be awarded under this section. The defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney�s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney�s fees and costs under this section, the court may not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. This section does not limit any right to recover attorney�s fees or costs provided under any other law.
Civil Theft and Economic Loss
What is an Economic Loss?
Economic losses are, �damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits-without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property.� Casa Clara Condominium Ass�n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244, 1246 (Fla.1993). And Florida has agreed with the majority of jurisdictions in holding that �economic losses are �disappointed economic expectations,� which are protected by contract law, rather than tort law.� Id.; see Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.Corp., 510 So.2d 899, 902 (Fla.1987). Simply put, a simple breach of contract is not tantamount to a civil theft.
In HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So.2d 1238, 1239 (Fla.1996) the supreme court concluded that both a contract and civil theft action may arise in tandem, stating:
�The economic loss rule has not eliminated causes of action based upon torts independent of contractual breach even though there exists a breach of contract action. Where a contract exists, a tort action will lie for either intentional or negligent acts considered to be independent from acts that breached the contract. Thus, in the proper circumstance, no doubt, claims for civil theft and breach of contract can coexist.�
Generally, to state a claim of Civil Theft in contractually related scenario a Plaintiff needs to set forth facts which demonstrate a separate a distinct loss aside from a contractual expectation not met. O�Donnell v. Arcoiries, Inc. 561 So.2d 344, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1990.
An example of this distinction is detailed in Burke v. Napieracz, 674 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), where the court held that the economic loss rule did not preclude a cause of action for a tort [civil theft] distinguishable from, or independent of, breach of contract. In that case the defendant was to receive specifically identifiable social security funds, deposit those funds in an identifiable bank account, and forward the funds to plaintiff. The defendant was not authorized to withdraw monies from the account except as specifically authorized by Burke. The First District noted that breach of the agreement would have resulted from the defendant�s failure either to properly deposit the social security funds or to provide the funds to Burke as requested. A tort was committed because, not only did the defendant fail to perform his contractual obligations, he took the funds for his personal use. The court held that an �affirmative and intentional act of converting the funds to his own use by allegedly stealing the monies to which he was entrusted� gave rise to a tort separate and independent from the breach of contract. Florida Desk, Inc. v. Mitchell Intern., Inc.,817 So.2d 1059, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2002.
Demonstration that Plaintiff lacked �Substantial Fact or Legal Support� for Prevailing Defendant Attorney�s Fees
One great benefit of Florida�s Civil Theft statute is that it provides prevailing Plaintiffs with its attorneys fees (Plaintiffs must prove civil theft by clear and convincing evidence.) However, for a defendant to be entitled to his fees he needs to demonstrate that the Plaintiff�s claim was without �substantial fact or legal support.� This is a tougher standard than simple prevailing party.Skubal v. Cooley, 650 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1995); see also Schellenbarger v. Merlich, 622 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1993) (since plaintiff�s original claim was not without substantial fact or legal support, the trial court�s award of attorneys� fees to the defendant was incorrect) See also Osherow,Counsel Beware: Considerations Before Implementing Florida�s Civil Theft Statute, Fla Bar Journal March 2003.
Statutory Notice
Fla. Stat. 772.11 provides that��before filing an action for damages under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages under this section.�
Under Florida law, before action for civil theft is filed, potential plaintiff must first make written demand for payment on defendant and cannot commence suit until 30 days later, in event no payment is made. In re Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc., Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.2001, 262 B.R. 131.
Felonious Intent
Ames v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 942 F.Supp. 551, 560 (S.D.Fla.1994) (�The instruction given also failed to include any mention of the state of mind required for civil theft. The intent necessary for larceny is animus furandi, which means intent to steal, or felonious intent.�). Florida Statutes � 812.014 defines theft for purposes of Fla. Stat. � 772.11 as follows: �A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses � the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property; or (b) Appropriate the property � to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.� Fla. Stat. � 812.014(1).
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
