PAUL ELIE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ERNESTINE ALFONSO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Elie sought to reach assets allegedly transferred to Alfonso by Elie's judgment debtor through an independent action. The trial court granted directed verdicts on most counts but submitted conversion, civil theft, and creditor's bill claims to resolution. Elie prevailed on all three, but the trial court granted a new trial on the civil theft count due to an improper jury instruction on the standard of proof. The appellate court reversed this new trial order, holding that civil theft was not supported by the facts or pleadings.
The appellate court held that civil theft was not supported by the facts or pleadings, and therefore the trial court should have granted a directed verdict for Alfonso on that count rather than granting a new trial. The court affirmed the final judgments and post-trial orders, reversed the order granting a new trial, and remanded with instructions to direct a verdict for Alfonso on the civil theft count.
[1] A directed verdict should be granted on a civil theft claim when the pleadings and evidence do not support such a cause of action.
[2] Facts supporting a creditor's bill in equity do not automatically establish a cause of action for civil theft.
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“Facts supporting a creditor's bill in equity do not automatically give rise to a cause of action for civil theft.”
Establishes that the legal basis for one claim does not automatically support a different legal theory; supports the court's reversal of the new trial order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElie commenced an independent action against Alfonso to reach assets allegedly transferred by Elie's judgment debtor. The complaint contained multiple…
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 Creditor'S Bill cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from the final judgments, order granting a new trial and orders on post-trial motions. In the court below, appellant commenced an independent action seeking to reach assets alleged to have been transferred to appellee by appellant’s judgment debtor. Appellant’s complaint contained multiple counts. At the close of appellant’s case, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for a directed verdict on all counts except for the claims for civil theft, conversion and creditor’s bill.
The trial court heard the creditor’s bill claim in equity, while the conversion and civil theft counts were submitted to a jury. Appellant prevailed on all three counts. At a hearing on post-trial motions, the court directed a verdict in favor of appellee on the conversion count and granted appellee’s motion for a new trial on the civil theft count. Other than the grant of a new trial on the civil theft count, we affirm in all respects.
In granting appellee’s motion for a new trial on the civil theft count, the trial court relied solely on the fact that the jury was improperly instructed on the standard of proof.1 We need not decide whether an erroneous instruction regarding the standard of proof, given without objection, necessitates a new trial. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence support a cause of action for civil theft. Facts supporting a creditor’s bill in equity do not automatically give rise to a cause of action for civil theft.
Therefore, the trial court should have granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict on that count rather than grant a new trial.
We affirm the final judgments and the post-trial orders, we reverse the court’s order granting a new trial, and remand to the trial court with instructions to direct a verdict for appellee on the civil theft count.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., FARMER, J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur. . The standard which was given was greater weight of the evidence. However, section 772.11, Florida Statutes (1993), governing civil theft, requires clear and convincing evidence.