Salinas v. Mobarak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salinas v. Mobarak

219 So. 3d 948, 2017 WL 2348610, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7802

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 2017

DocketNo. 3D16-1543

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 3d 948 (Salinas v. Mobarak) 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

Salinas v. Mobarak, 219 So. 3d 948, 2017 WL 2348610, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7802 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, Jorge Salmas appeals the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Salinas’s claims. We affirm because the evidence adduced at trial by Salinas failed to establish any of the causes of action Salinas asserted against Appellee, defendant below, Martin Mobarak. Kopel v. Kopel, 117 So.3d 1147, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), rev’d on other grounds, No. SC13-992, — So.3d -, 2017 WL 372074 (Fla. Jan. 26, 2017) (explaining that, to establish unjust enrichment claim, evidence of plaintiff conferring direct benefit upon defendant required); Beers v. Beers, 724 So.2d 109, 116-17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that imposition of constructive trust requires evidence of fiduciary relationship or evidence that defendant took unconscionable advantage of plaintiff); Edd Helms Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 531 So.2d 238, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1988) (holding that equitable lien unavailable when contract remedies are adequate).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, Jorge Salmas appeals the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Salinas’s claims. We affirm because the evidence adduced at trial by Salinas failed to establish any of the causes of action Salinas asserted against Appellee, defendant below, Martin Mobarak. Kopel v. Kopel, 117 So.3d 1147, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), rev’d on other grounds, No. SC13-992, — So.3d -, 2017 WL 372074 (Fla. Jan. 26, 2017) (explaining that, to establish unjust enrichment claim, evidence of plaintiff conferring direct benefit upon defendant required); Beers v. Beers, 724 So.2d 109, 116-17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that imposition of constructive trust requires evidence of fiduciary relationship or evidence that defendant took unconscionable advantage of plaintiff); Edd Helms Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 531 So.2d 238, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1988) (holding that equitable lien unavailable when contract remedies are adequate).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 948, 2017 WL 2348610, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salinas-v-mobarak-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack