Sanchez v. Encinas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanchez v. Encinas

627 So. 2d 489, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4682, 1993 WL 130562

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1056

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 489 (Sanchez v. Encinas) 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

Sanchez v. Encinas, 627 So. 2d 489, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4682, 1993 WL 130562 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellee, a professional singer, recovered damages for breach of a contract to promote the plaintiffs recordings and for “civil theft” of a master tape which was involved in the agreement. We reverse the breach of contract award because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not establish that he would have profited in any way even if the agreement had been performed, see A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and the judgment under the theft statute because the record shows, at most, a bona fide dispute over the right to the property in question, and thus negates the wrongful intent required to sustain a claim for theft. See Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellants.

Reversed.

Upon consideration, appellee’s motion for clarification is granted. The decision in this cause does not affect the unchallenged ruling below that the appellee is entitled to return of the tapes in question. The appellants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is denied. SCHWARTZ, C.J., NESBITT and COPE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellee, a professional singer, recovered damages for breach of a contract to promote the plaintiffs recordings and for “civil theft” of a master tape which was involved in the agreement. We reverse the breach of contract award because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not establish that he would have profited in any way even if the agreement had been performed, see A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and the judgment under the theft statute because the record shows, at most, a bona fide dispute over the right to the property in question, and thus negates the wrongful intent required to sustain a claim for theft. See Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co., 450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellants.

Reversed.

Upon consideration, appellee’s motion for clarification is granted. The decision in this cause does not affect the unchallenged ruling below that the appellee is entitled to return of the tapes in question. The appellants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is denied. SCHWARTZ, C.J., NESBITT and COPE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 489, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4682, 1993 WL 130562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-encinas-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack