O'Neill v. Schoenbrod

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Neill v. Schoenbrod

374 So. 2d 70, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15640

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1979

DocketNo. 78-858

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 70 (O'Neill v. Schoenbrod) 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

O'Neill v. Schoenbrod, 374 So. 2d 70, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15640 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

HUBBART, Judge.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint sounding in unjust enrichment arising from the salvage of a boat approximately two miles off the coast of Florida. This same claim had previously been filed as a salvage action and was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that a salvage claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district court sitting in admiralty. On appeal, this court affirmed. O’Neill v. Schoenbrod, 355 So.2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

We adhere to our prior decision and again affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint as, in our view, it is nothing more than a disguised salvage claim over which we have declined to exercise jurisdiction. Indeed, a comparison between the first and second complaints herein reveal substantially the same allegations. We recognize that there may be technical differences between a salvage claim and an unjust enrichment [71]*71claim arising out of the salvage of a boat, but regard these differences of gossamer strength and, for that reason, find it completely inadvisable to authorize the bringing of a kind of limited salvage claim under the heading of unjust enrichment. Such a ruling would, in our view, invite confusion and unnecessary state-federal jurisdictional conflict.

We further find no merit in the remaining contention raised by the plaintiff on this appeal. Insurance Company of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

HUBBART, Judge.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint sounding in unjust enrichment arising from the salvage of a boat approximately two miles off the coast of Florida. This same claim had previously been filed as a salvage action and was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that a salvage claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district court sitting in admiralty. On appeal, this court affirmed. O’Neill v. Schoenbrod, 355 So.2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

We adhere to our prior decision and again affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint as, in our view, it is nothing more than a disguised salvage claim over which we have declined to exercise jurisdiction. Indeed, a comparison between the first and second complaints herein reveal substantially the same allegations. We recognize that there may be technical differences between a salvage claim and an unjust enrichment [71]*71claim arising out of the salvage of a boat, but regard these differences of gossamer strength and, for that reason, find it completely inadvisable to authorize the bringing of a kind of limited salvage claim under the heading of unjust enrichment. Such a ruling would, in our view, invite confusion and unnecessary state-federal jurisdictional conflict.

We further find no merit in the remaining contention raised by the plaintiff on this appeal. Insurance Company of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 So. 2d 70, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-schoenbrod-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack