Saewitz v. Saewitz, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 29

Mercedes R. Saewitz and Brooke A. Saewitz sue Lynn Saewitz for conversion and tortious interference with an expected inheritance.
Trial court directed a verdict and dismissed at the close of the daughters' case-in-chief for failure to prove damages.
Evidence showed assets were valued in the millions, but without a time-specific measure of damages tied to the conversion.
Daughters relied on accountants Rosenberg and Goldstein and Lynn's testimony to establish value, but the evidence did not specify the time of loss.
The court applied the legal standard that damages in conversion/intentional interference with inheritance must be proven with reasonable certainty.
Discovery issues were raised regarding defense failure to obtain documents; the court denied motions to reopen or grant new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether damages were proven with reasonable certainty.	Saewitz argues damages were proven by asset values in the millions as specific losses due to the interference.	Saewitz contends evidence shows liability but not a definite time-bound, certain damages measure.	Damages not proven with reasonable certainty; affirmed dismissal.
Whether the directed verdict was proper for failure to prove damages.	Damages were supported by accounting and testimony indicating asset value at issue.	Even with liability established, damages were not sufficiently definite or time-bound.	Directed verdict affirmed for lack of damages proof.
Whether discovery lapses by defense counsel justify reopening or a new trial.	Defense failure to produce documents prevented proper damages proof.	Daughters did not pursue discovery remedies and cannot shift fault to defense.	Court did not abuse discretion; sanctions/reopening denied.
Whether the trial court correctly applied applicable damages standards to the inheritance interference claim.	Damages should be recoverable as the value at the time of the interference.	Damages must be proven with certainty linked to the specific time and asset values.	Damages failed under reasonable certainty standard; affirmed.

Stein v. Paradigm Mirsol, LLC, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D.Fla.2008) (damages are an element of conversion)
Whalen v. Prosser, 719 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (damages required for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance)
Nebula Glass Int'l, Inc. v. Reichhold, Inc., 454 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.2006) (reasonable certainty required to prove damages)
Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reasonable certainty standard; not exactitude)
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (certainty required; damages to be definite)
Smith v. Austin Dev. Co., 538 So.2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (proof of damages cannot be conjectural)
Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Net Results, Inc., 77 So.3d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (extrapolation/an over ninety percent claim damages push into conjecture)
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (proof of damages must withstand appellate scrutiny)
Chmura v. Sam Rodgers Props., Inc., 2 So.3d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (sanctions for noncompliance depend on court orders)
Austin v. Liquid Distribs., Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (liberal amendments at trial reduced as case progresses)
Palm v. Taylor, 929 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (amending pleadings during trial generally not allowed)