AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Timothy S. Brumlik, Appellants, v. SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, an Association Organized and Existing under the Laws of the United States, Now Known As Southeast Bank, N.A., Appellee.
No. 83-2431
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
April 23, 1985
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1985
468 So.2d 383
Richard A. Sherman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Britton, Cohen, Cassel, Kaufman & Schantz and Arthur M. Simon and John Britton, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
BARKDULL, Judge.
The appellants seek review of an adverse summary final judgment awarding the appellee triple damages in an action alleging breach of contract and civil theft.
American International Realty, Inc. maintained a checking account at Southeast Bank. The only signatory on the account was the corporation president, Timothy Brumlik. On or about September 4, 1981, Brumlik executed a check on the account in the amount of $17,379 payable to Paine Webber. The check was to pay for stock personally purchased by Brumlik.
Thereafter the trial court assessed attorney‘s fees in the amount of $8,700.00.
We affirm the summary judgment as relates to Count 1 in the amount of $17,379 plus interest as a compensatory loss.4 We reverse the judgment on the civil theft count.5
At the time of opening the account the parties entered a written contract, a portion of which reads as follows:
“Overdrafts. If you write a check for more money than you have available in your account, you‘ll be overdrawn and we have the right to return the check. We are not required to permit overdrafts, but if we do, you agree that we may charge interest on the amount of the overdraft at the highest rate permitted by law.”
Upon the bank receiving the overdrawn check, it had the option to either return it marked “drawn against insufficient funds” or honoring it and considering it a loan to the depositor. The bank unilaterally opted for the latter course. It so notified the depositor and when it was not paid, brought the instant action. The bank was limited, under the circumstances of this case, to recovery of the amount advanced,6 plus interest, and attorney‘s fees.
Because the attorney‘s fee award was based on the entire amount recovered, some $80,000, it is set aside and should be recomputed based on the ultimate recovery of $17,379.
Therefore we direct the trial court to enter a new summary judgment for the plaintiff, against American, in the amount
Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Notes
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent:
(a) To deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom.
(b) To appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.
* * * * * *
(7) Any person who is injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of the provisions of ss. 812.012-812.037 shall have a cause of action for three-fold the actual damages sustained and, when appropriate, punitive damages. Such person shall also recover attorneys’ fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation.
