RAUL VELASQUEZ
v.
JOSH HERMAN, ETC., ET AL.
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.
A civil conspiracy claim cannot be sustained where the alleged conduct—retaining funds from money advanced for apprehension expenses—constitutes at most a breach of contract, and the defendants possessed a contractual right to pursue apprehension and retain funds for reasonable expenses incurred.
[1] A civil conspiracy claim cannot be sustained where the alleged wrongful conduct constitutes at most a breach of contract and does not involve independent tortious conduct…
[2] Where parties have entered into an express written agreement granting one party the right to advance funds for specific purposes and retain funds for reasonable expenses…
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“if Velazquez had a claim against the Herman Defendants, it was not a civil conspiracy claim, but 'a garden variety breach of contract claim premised upon an alleged failure to return money advanced pursuant to an express written agreement entered into between Velazquez and IF – through IF's agent – Herman.'”
Establishes that the trial court recharacterized the nature of Velazquez's claim from tort to contract, which was dispositive of the civil conspiracy theory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVelazquez's son was arrested on federal drug trafficking charges and released on a $1,000,000 surety bond arranged through bail bondsmen and the Herma…
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 Conversion Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 19, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-2729 Lower Tribunal No. 09-502 ________________
Raul Velazquez, Appellant,
vs.
Josh Herman, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge.
Eaton & Wolk, PL, and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellant.
Law Office of Jerry D. Haynes, P.A., and Jerry D. Haynes, for appellees.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Raul Velazquez, appellant and plaintiff below (“Velazquez”), appeals a November 8, 2016 final judgment entered in favor of appellees, defendants below,
Velazquez’s son, Darli Velazquez-Armas (“Darli”), was arrested in January 2007, and charged with federal drug trafficking violations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida conditioned Darli’s release on the posting of a $1,000,000 corporate surety bond. Once Velazquez arranged for this surety bond, Darli was released from custody. Shortly thereafter, in March 2007, Darli absconded.
There were several stages to Velazquez’s effort to secure the surety bond. Initially, Velazquez contacted a local bail bondsman, Emilio Faroy of Faroy Bail Bonds. Faroy enlisted the assistance of Joe Mastrapa and his company Surety Financial of America Corporation. Mestrapa put Faroy in contact with the Herman Defendants in California who had a business affiliation with International Fidelity Insurance Company (“IF”). Velazquez (and his wife) executed IF’s written application for appearance bond and an indemnity agreement, and obtained the surety bond from IF. Velazquez paid a $100,000 premium (which was split by Faroy, Mastrapa and the Herman Defendants), and put up as collateral properties he owned
Velazquez paid the $441,211.73 to Faroy and Mastrapa who, in turn, forwarded this sum to the Herman Defendants. The Herman Defendants hired a bounty hunter named Rolando Betancourt who tracked down Darli and returned him to federal custody in August 2007. After Darli’s capture, Velazquez demanded the return of his additional funds, less the reasonable costs and fees incurred in the apprehension of Darli. Although Betancourt’s final bill was for $371,056.59, the Herman Defendants paid him only $191,000.2 Velazquez filed suit in March 2011. The gravamen of Velazquez’s complaint was that the several bail bondsmen overcharged Velazquez for the apprehension of Darli. Velazquez sued ten defendants and raised numerous legal theories; essentially, Velazquez alleged that the Herman Defendants conspired with the other defendants to convert his property. After a series of dismissals and
1 The District Court did not estreat the surety bond. Eventually, the District Court discharged the surety bond in February 2008.
2 At trial, Josh Herman testified that the Herman Defendants incurred additional expenses by hiring other investigators so that their total expenditure was approximately $439,000.
3 The jury arrived at this award by subtracting the $191,000 payment to Betancourt from the $441,211.73 that Velazquez paid in additional funds. After an error in the verdict, the trial court granted Velazquez’s motion to amend the verdict to reflect the jury’s intent to award $250,211.73.
4 We note, as the trial court did, both that IF obtained summary judgment on Velazquez’s breach of contract claim, and that the record does not reflect whether Velazquez appealed this summary judgment.
After our careful review of the record on appeal, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis set forth in its comprehensive and well-reasoned order on the Herman Defendants’ post-trial motions. Affirmed.