Alexander Bostic v. Matari Bodie
24-10126
| 11th Cir. | May 20, 2025Background
- Judith Paris-Pinder operated a Ponzi scheme promising returns from investments in personal-injury legal claims from 2019 to 2021.
- Matari Bodie invested in this scheme, briefly profited, and then recruited Alexander Bostic and others (the "Assignors") as indirect investors through separate loan agreements.
- Bostic and the Assignors transferred a total of $299,000 to Bodie, expecting promised returns and repayment; Bodie’s agreements provided lower returns than those Paris-Pinder offered, allowing Bodie a spread.
- Paris-Pinder stopped making payments to Bodie before he finalized agreements with the Assignors, but Bodie used new funds to pay off earlier debts, indicating a derivative Ponzi structure.
- Bostic sued for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil theft; the district court granted summary judgment for Bostic on several tort claims and entered a large treble damages award under the civil theft statute.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the unjust enrichment summary judgment, but vacated the decisions on civil theft and fraudulent misrepresentation, finding factual disputes and clarifying Florida law on monetary debts and tort remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Theft | Bodie intended to steal or misappropriate funds given via loan agreements. | Bodie had no intent to steal; he believed in Paris-Pinder's legitimacy. | Summary judgment improper; material fact dispute on intent. |
| Identifiability for Civil Theft | Funds were transferred for a specific purpose, thus actionable as theft. | Loan funds were unsegregated, no obligation to hold same money in trust. | Civil theft is not a proper remedy for generic monetary debts. |
| Unjust Enrichment | Retention of funds by Bodie is inequitable; all claim elements are met. | Plaintiff has unclean hands due to usurious, void contracts. | Affirmed; equity demands Bodie return funds, no valid defense. |
| Fraudulent Misrepresentation | Bodie falsely promised to invest funds and induced reliance. | Bodie intended full performance; Assignors may have only relied on Bostic. | Summary judgment improper; factual disputes on intent and reliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard clarified).
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact).
- Belford Trucking Co. v. Zagar, 243 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (conversion of money requires identifiability and segregation).
- Gasparini v. Pordomingo, 972 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (civil theft inapplicable to general debts, only specific, segregated funds).
- Masvidal v. Ochoa, 505 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (conversion proper for funds held in escrow or trust).
- Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010) (fraudulent misrepresentation elements under Florida law).