519 So. 2d 26 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1987
Lead Opinion
Association Financial Services, Inc. (AFS) appeals an adverse final judgment awarding treble damages to appellees Ralph Hewitt, George Lewis, and Albert Jacobson.
AFS’s codefendant below, Allied Gasoline Retailers Association (AGRA),
The appellees filed an action against AFS, AGRA, and AGRA’s executive director. The jury found both AGRA and AFS to be guilty of conversion and theft of funds belonging to the appellees, and that AGRA and AFS had interfered with the business relationships between Hewitt and the field representatives, including Lewis and Jacobson. The jury found compensatory damages of $278,463 to Hewitt, $126,309 to Lewis, and $285,205 to Jacobson. The trial court trebled these damages pursuant to section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes (Florida’s Civil Theft Statute) and entered a final judgment against AFS, AGRA, and AGRA’s executive director, jointly and severally.
Under the facts of this case, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s conversion and civil theft verdicts as to AFS, and those parts of the final judgment are reversed.
As we reverse the civil theft finding against AFS, the appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees on appeal filed pursuant to section 812.035(7), Florida Statutes, is denied.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
. AGRA is not a party to this appeal.
. See, e.g., Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986).
Rehearing
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. Appellees Lewis and Jacobson did not plead a claim of intentional interference with a business relationship against AFS. Therefore, our opinion of December 3, 1987, is modified and the judgment against AFS awarding $126,309 and $285,-205 to Lewis and Jacobson, respectively, based on intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship, is also reversed. The judgment and award in favor of Hewitt and against AFS based on intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship are affirmed.
Except as modified hereby, we adhere to the original opinion filed in this case.