DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - CONVERSION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND CIVIL THEFT - PLAINTIFF AUTO DEALER CLAIMS IT MISTAKENLY OVER CREDITED DEFENDANT CUSTOMER AND DEFENDANT CONVERTED AND RETAINED FUNDS KNOWING HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MONEY - DEFENDANT DENIES KNOWING CREDIT WAS MISTAKE AND COUNTER CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF FLORIDA'S MOTOR VEHICLE RETAIL SALES FINANCE ACT AND BREACH OF RISC.

• Pages: 9-11

tory challenge on Juror 14 via backstrike. Under Florida law, disal-

lowing the defendant’s exercise of its peremptory challenge by way

of backstrike is per se reversible error per Van Sickle v. Zimmer,

807 So. 2d182, 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, the defendant

maintained, the court should grant a new trial.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s motions arguing that the

court heard extensive argument on this issue and correctly ruled

that the agreement between TBOS/Dr. David Wall and Dr. Donnel-

ly was simply a business decision and not relevant evidence on the

issue of the reasonableness of the bills. Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401 &

90.403. Additionally, this Court heard extensive argument regard-

ing the fact that WSC and APS billed Plaintiff a sum total of

$50,318.63 and that both entities sold both of Plaintiff’s bills to

Greenway Funding for a sum total $9,773.00. This Court was ad-

vised that WCS and APS did not just single out the plaintiff’s bill

alone, that her bill was sold with a batch of other bills at the same

time. This Court was also advised that the plaintiff received a lien

from Greenway Funding advising her that she is still legally re-

sponsible to pay Greenway Funding the entire $50,318.63. This

Court, having reviewed the evidence and hearing argument, cor-

rectly ruled that such evidence is simply a business factoring deci-

sion and is not relevant to the value of the usual and customary

charges for the medical services provided to the plaintiff. (See

Order Attached as Exhibit B). The Court therefore excluded the

evidence.

The plaintiff asserted that it should be noted that the plaintiff was

53 years old at the time of the accident and was working full time.

More importantly, the plaintiff was not a Medicare recipient. There-

fore, the Dial case, cited by the defendant, really has no instruction

for the Court on this case. This Court also correctly analyzed the

case law regarding the inadmissibility of health insurance reim-

bursement rates and analogized it to these 2 billing issues as fur-

ther support of the Court’s decision to exclude these 2 issues. See

Orders citing Goble, 848 So. 2d 406. approved, 901 So. 2d 830

(Fla. 2005); (Fla. 2005); Nationwide v. Harrell, 53 So.3d 1084

(Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Joerg v. State Farm, 176 So. 3d 1247 (Fla.

2015).

Additionally, the defense cites to several cases regarding their posi-

tion on the admissibility of the above 2 issues, none of which are

controlling on the issue of admissibility. Additionally the plaintiff

asserted that she presented sufficient evidence for the jury’s consid-

eration of future medical care and that It should be noted that the

“trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for a new

trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence” per Brown v. Est. of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d

490, 497 (Fla. 1999). Based on the expert testimony heard at trial,

the plaintiff held, it could not be said that the jury’s award of

$85,000 was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. With

regard to the issue of backstrike of the juror, the plaintiff main-

tained that the defendant’s argument attempted to confuse the ac-

tual events of what occurred during the jury selection process. The

plaintiff argued that the court did not in any way restrict or prevent

the defendant from exercising a peremptory challenge. The

defendant simply made a strategic decision on which jurors it

wanted impaneled.

The court denied the defendant’s motions.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – CONVERSION – UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND CIVIL THEFT –

PLAINTIFF AUTO DEALER CLAIMS IT MISTAKENLY OVER CREDITED DEFENDANT

CUSTOMER AND DEFENDANT CONVERTED AND RETAINED FUNDS KNOWING HE

WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MONEY – DEFENDANT DENIES KNOWING CREDIT WAS

MISTAKE AND COUNTER CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF

FLORIDA’S MOTOR VEHICLE RETAIL SALES FINANCE ACT AND BREACH OF RISC.

Pinellas County, FL

In this conversion, civil theft, and unjust

enrichment case, the plaintiff auto dealership

asserted that the defendant customer was

inadvertently given double credit for a vehicle

trade-in to which he was not entitled and that,

though he knew the funds were received in error,

he kept the money. The defendant denied the

plaintiff’s charges and argued that the “down

payment” figure as reported was not a complete

rendition of the financial position between the

parties.

The plaintiff and the defendant, over a period of 2

years, entered into a series of transactions regarding the

defendant’s purchase of four different high-value the

plaintiff motorcars. The defendant purchased the sec-

ond of these cars, a “California T” convertible (car #2), in

early 2016. In late 2016, the defendant consigned the

California T to the plaintiff, and as represented on a

Consignment Agreement dated November 26, 2016,

the defendant agreed to accept $199,000 for the car

as full payment, in exchange for providing clear title with

no liens or encumbrances. At that time, the California T

was in fact subject to a loan and lien of $122,982. Be-

cause of paperwork errors, that lien amount was paid off

by the plaintiff, but was not charged back to the defen-

dant, resulting in an undue windfall to the defendant of

$122,982.

When the defendant purchased his next car (car #3),

he received an excessive trade-in credit of $199,000, a

number which included $122,982, the amount of the

outstanding loan on car #2, that the plaintiff acciden-

tally made on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff ar-

gued that the defendant himself acknowledged that

there was an error in the calculation of the credit to

which he was entitled, as reflected in an April 17, 2017

text to the plaintiff’s General Manager. The plaintiff did, in

fact, pay off the defendant’s $122,981 lien on car #2,

the California T, which slipped by due to paperwork er-

rors. The plaintiff subsequently discovered that it had ac-

cidentally credited the defendant with the entire

$199,000 sale price of car #2.

Embedded in the improper $199,000 credit were two

items: 1) the payoff of $122,982 on car #2, the Califor-

nia T, and $76,018, which represented the defendant’s

equity 4 in car #2. The defendant correctly received this

$76,012 credit on the purchase of car #3, which oc-

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 9

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now