Case Name: Brenda WILLIAMS, et al., Appellants, v. Marye JOHNSON, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-10-11
Citations: 232 So. 3d 483
Docket Number: No. 3D16-2898
Parties: Brenda WILLIAMS, et al., Appellants, v. Marye JOHNSON, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ. ' '
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 232
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
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. ' '

Opinion:
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.