Custom Electric Motors, Inc. v. Hart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Custom Electric Motors, Inc. v. Hart

773 So. 2d 104, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15508, 2000 WL 1759868

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-4004

StatusPublished

This text of 773 So. 2d 104 (Custom Electric Motors, Inc. v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Custom Electric Motors, Inc. v. Hart, 773 So. 2d 104, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15508, 2000 WL 1759868 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of Appellant’s claim that Appellees converted six large motors owned by Appellant and located on property owned by a third party. The trial court concluded there was no conversion because all the elements of the tort were not present. We reverse and remand.

Based upon evidence presented at trial, the trial court, in effect, found that it was Appellee’s idea to have someone move Appellant’s motors and that, without obtaining Appellant’s consent, Appellee made arrangements to have the motors hauled off as scrap material. Appellee’s actions deprived Appellant of its ownership interest in the motors. The essential elements of conversion were therefore established, and the trial court erred in ruling to the contrary. We reverse and remand for a trial on damages. Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 641 So.2d 1346 (Fla.1994); General Finance Corp. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Sexton, 155 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of Appellant’s claim that Appellees converted six large motors owned by Appellant and located on property owned by a third party. The trial court concluded there was no conversion because all the elements of the tort were not present. We reverse and remand.

Based upon evidence presented at trial, the trial court, in effect, found that it was Appellee’s idea to have someone move Appellant’s motors and that, without obtaining Appellant’s consent, Appellee made arrangements to have the motors hauled off as scrap material. Appellee’s actions deprived Appellant of its ownership interest in the motors. The essential elements of conversion were therefore established, and the trial court erred in ruling to the contrary. We reverse and remand for a trial on damages. Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 641 So.2d 1346 (Fla.1994); General Finance Corp. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Sexton, 155 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 104, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15508, 2000 WL 1759868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/custom-electric-motors-inc-v-hart-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack