Hurt v. Mid-West Mini Photo Lab, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hurt v. Mid-West Mini Photo Lab, Inc.

516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11812, 1987 WL 3341

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1987

DocketNo. 87-0993

StatusPublished

This text of 516 So. 2d 1150 (Hurt v. Mid-West Mini Photo Lab, Inc.) 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

Hurt v. Mid-West Mini Photo Lab, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11812, 1987 WL 3341 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record supports the trial court’s award of damages, attorney’s fees and costs to appellee. The record also supports the trial court’s factual determination that appellee held certain items of appellant’s personal property as a bailee, and that appellant failed to prove a conversion of the property. However, we find that the trial court erred when it based its finding of liability on both appellee’s Count I for civil theft and Court IV for breach of contract. See Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Therefore we affirm the final judgment in favor of appellee. However, we reverse that part of the final judgment that finds liability under Count IV of appellee’s complaint and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to modify the final judgment accordingly.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record supports the trial court’s award of damages, attorney’s fees and costs to appellee. The record also supports the trial court’s factual determination that appellee held certain items of appellant’s personal property as a bailee, and that appellant failed to prove a conversion of the property. However, we find that the trial court erred when it based its finding of liability on both appellee’s Count I for civil theft and Court IV for breach of contract. See Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Therefore we affirm the final judgment in favor of appellee. However, we reverse that part of the final judgment that finds liability under Count IV of appellee’s complaint and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to modify the final judgment accordingly.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11812, 1987 WL 3341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurt-v-mid-west-mini-photo-lab-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack