Skelton v. Munez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Skelton v. Munez

502 So. 2d 72, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6708

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1987

DocketNo. 86-560

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 72 (Skelton v. Munez) 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

Skelton v. Munez, 502 So. 2d 72, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6708 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the [73]*73plaintiff in an action sounding in intentional infliction of mental distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract and conversion. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant Millie Skelton’s motion for new trial. We entirely agree because (1) on this record, the plaintiff Rafael Munez failed to establish a pri-ma facie case of intentional infliction of mental distress and invasion of privacy, see Cason v. Baskin, 159 Fla. 31, 30 So.2d 635 (1947); Trueba v. Pershing Indus., 374 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1204 (Fla.1980); Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, 370 So.2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and cases collected, cert. denied, 381 So.2d 766 (Fla.1980), and (2) the damages awarded for conversion and breach of contract [$29,000] far exceed the only compen-sable damages established below [$3,047.74], the jury having declined to award any punitive damages in the case. See Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480, 484-85 (Fla.1954); Williams v. Cannon, 126 Fla. 441, 43-44, 171 So. 308 (1936); City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So.2d 697, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976).

The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the [73]*73plaintiff in an action sounding in intentional infliction of mental distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract and conversion. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant Millie Skelton’s motion for new trial. We entirely agree because (1) on this record, the plaintiff Rafael Munez failed to establish a pri-ma facie case of intentional infliction of mental distress and invasion of privacy, see Cason v. Baskin, 159 Fla. 31, 30 So.2d 635 (1947); Trueba v. Pershing Indus., 374 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1204 (Fla.1980); Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, 370 So.2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and cases collected, cert. denied, 381 So.2d 766 (Fla.1980), and (2) the damages awarded for conversion and breach of contract [$29,000] far exceed the only compen-sable damages established below [$3,047.74], the jury having declined to award any punitive damages in the case. See Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480, 484-85 (Fla.1954); Williams v. Cannon, 126 Fla. 441, 43-44, 171 So. 308 (1936); City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So.2d 697, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976).

The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 72, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skelton-v-munez-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack