Case ID: so3d_232/html/0483-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brenda WILLIAMS, et al., Appellants, v. Marye JOHNSON, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D16-2898
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 11, 2017
    Rehearing Denied November 8, 2017
    Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Daniel S. Weinger and Robin Bresky (Boca Raton), for appellants.
    
      Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Jacqueline C. Ledón and Anna-Bo Emmanuel, for appellees.
    Before EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ. ' '
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants Brenda Williams and Epiphany Community Development Corp. appeal from the trial court’s entry of judgment 'in accordance with appellees’ motion for directed verdict in favor of appellees, Marye Johnson and Comprehensive Outreach Programs, Inc. Upon our de novo review, we hold that the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion and entered judgment in their favor. Appellants sought damages on a theory of unjust enrichment. However, given the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter, “claims arising out of that contractual relationship will not support a claim for unjust enrichment.” Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), disapproved of on other grounds, Bank of New York Mellon v. Condo. Ass’n of La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So.3d 282 (Fla. 2015). See also Braham v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 170 So.3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Diamond “S” Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) for the proposition that plaintiff could.not pursue unjust enrichment claim where express contract existed concerning the same subject matter); Atlantis Estate Acquisitions, Inc., v. DePierro, 125 So.3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.