FORT LAUDERDALE RIVERWALK PROPERTIES, INC., AND PAUL M. MARMISH, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
SYLVIA WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT; SYLVIA WHITE, APPELLANT, V. FORT LAUDERDALE RIVERWALK PROPERTIES, INC., AND PAUL M. MARMISH, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties appealed a judgment awarding damages for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because there was no evidence of specific conduct by the defendant that prevented the plaintiff's exercise of her option rights or induced a breach.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for tortious interference because there was no evidence of specific conduct by the defendant that prevented the plaintiff's exercise of her option rights or induced a breach by the seller. Mere silence about the defendant's intentions, without more, is insufficient to constitute tortious interference.
[1] A prima facie case for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship requires proof of a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal righ…
[2] A plaintiff cannot establish tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship without evidence of specific conduct by the defendant that prevented the exe…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship are: (1) a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship, (3) breach of the relationship, and (4) damages.”
Establishes the legal standard for tortious interference claims that the plaintiff must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff held an option to purchase real property expiring within a week. She discussed a development proposal with potential investors, includin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inducing Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The defendants appeal a final judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship.
The plaintiff had an option to purchase a parcel of real property, which would expire within a week. She discussed a proposal for the development of the property with a small group of potential, buyers or investors, including the defendant. Under the proposal, the plaintiff, who was not a licensed real estate salesperson or broker, would have received an 8% equity interest. The plaintiff does not contend that there was any agreement between herself and the defendant Marmish or any other member of his group.
The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship are: (1) a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship, (3) breach of the relationship, and (4) damages. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1985); American Medical International, Inc. v. Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1985); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971).
We reverse for lack of sufficient proof to sustain a prima facie case. See Lake Gateway Motor Inn, Inc. v. Matt’s Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 361 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1979). There is no evidence in the record of any specific conduct by Marmish that prevented the exercise of plaintiff’s option rights. There was no breach by the seller, nor even any effort by Marmish to induce such a breach.
The plaintiff relies on inferences to be drawn from the defendant’s conduct in claiming that he induced her into failing to exercise her option rights. She contends that she was entitled to believe that she did not need to take any action to renew her option, or to find other buyers in the short time available, because the defendant asked her for information, without telling her whether or not he was going forward on her proposal, and talked with the seller prior to the expiration of the option. There was no effort on the plaintiff’s part to extend the option, nor was the plaintiff negotiating with others at that time. The plaintiff concedes that there would have been no claim of interference if the defendant had told her of his intentions, rather than simply remaining silent. We note that this is not a case of a buyer and seller attempting to avoid payment of a legitimate broker’s commission. Nor is this a suit for breach of contract, or for fraud and deceit. The trial court did direct a verdict on additional counts for civil theft and unjust enrichment.
We conclude that, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict against the plaintiff on the count for tortious interference. The final judgment is, therefore, reversed.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GNB, Inc. v. United Danco Batteries, Inc., 627 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…amage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the relationship. Id. at 1127. See also Security Title Guarantee Corp. of Baltimore v. McDill Columbus Corp., 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties, Inc. v. White, 531 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review denied, 541 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1989); Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 411 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1981); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 S…1 / 2
-
Tanfield C. Miller and Helen A. Miller v. Bruce S. Selden, M.D., 591 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…intiff has legal rights; (2) the intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by defendants; and, (3) damage to plaintiff as a result of the breach of the business relationship. Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties, Inc. v. White, 531 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 541 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1989); Rosa v. Florida Coast Bank, 484 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 1…
-
Tietig v. Se. Reg'l Constr. Corp., 557 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…hough Leadership was entirely ready to do so. The lack of a causal relationship between the alleged “interference” and the failure of the agreement similarly precludes recovery as a matter of law. Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties, Inc. v. White, 531 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review denied, 541 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1989); Ethyl, 386 So. 2d at 1224 (“There is no such thing as a cause of action for interference which is only ... consequentially effected.”). 3. Southeast’s present cause of action both shou…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. J.C. Cotton and Aubrey Jesse Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985)
- Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Am. Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Zbigniew Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Lake Gateway Motor INN, Inc. v. Matt's Sunshine Gift Shops, Inc., 361 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- J. Rolfe Davis, Inc. v. Symon, 249 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971)
- Hubbard v. MT. Sinai Hosp., 249 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971)