Fito v. Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
83 So. 3d 755
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. (Attorneys' Title) issued title policies and related documents for several real estate closings conducted through National Title Services, Inc. (National Title).
- National Title acted as an agent of Attorneys' Title to issue title commitments, policies, and endorsements in the closings.
- Fito used National Title to arrange three transactions, receiving substantial proceeds wired from National Title to Horizon (owned by Fito).
- Closing files contained multiple HUD-1 statements for the same properties, with inflated lender amounts used to fund loans and divert funds to appellants.
- Appellants allegedly received about $2.35 million from these transactions, while lenders funded inflated amounts; Attorneys' Title brought unjust enrichment claims after lenders claimed losses.
- The trial court found appellants engaged in fraudulent transactions and profited, but Attorneys' Title failed to show it conferred a benefit on appellants and thus reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment was proven. | Fito et al. received funds resulting from Attorneys' Title’s closings. | Funds belonged to lenders and were disbursed by National Title as an agent; Attorneys' Title did not confer the benefit. | No; entitlement required proof Attorneys' Title conferred the benefit. |
| Whether Attorneys' Title proved it conferred the benefit on appellants. | Attorneys' Title disbursed or stood in the shoes of lenders. | Funds were those of lenders; no assignment or subrogation shown to prove conferred benefit. | No; absence of lenders’ assignment or subrogation prevented conferred-benefit finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (underlying unjust enrichment principle requires restitution to the correct party)
- Bowleg v. Bowe, 502 So.2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (equity requires plaintiff to prove entitlement before equity acts)
- Demorizi v. Demorizi, 851 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (equity will fashion a just decree but only if claim proven)
- Tropical Jewelers Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., 19 So.3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (deference to trial court findings; clearly erroneous standard for non-jury trials)
- RKR Motors, Inc. v. Associated Uniform Rental & Linen Supply, Inc., 995 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (de novo review of conclusions of law and application of law to facts)