Plaintiff MUST Confer Direct Benefit on Defendant to Prove Unjust Enrichment

“The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are: (1) plaintiff has conferred benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge thereof; (2) defendant voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred; and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof to the plaintiff.” CFLB Partnership, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 47 Fla.L.Weekly D1812a (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Regarding the first element “plaintiff has conferred benefit on the defendant,” the benefit conferred must be DIRECT and NOT an indirect benefit. Irrespective of whether or not I agree...

28 November

0 Comments

Sticky

To Pierce Corporate Veil, there Needs to be Sufficient Findings of Improper Conduct

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

A trial court’s decision whether to pierce the corporate veil is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review because it presents a pure issue of law. Flooring Depot FTL, Inc. v. Wurtzebach, 2021 WL 5348903, *2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The recent decision in Flooring Depot FTL demonstrating that piercing a corporate veil is not so easy, and really, far from it. In this case, homeowners did not receive approximate 1,912 square feet of purchased flooring. The homeowners sued the flooring company for not providing all of the flooring they paid for and claimed fraud. The homeowners attempted to...

06 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Demonstrating the Difficult Burden in PIERCING the Corporate Veil

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Trying to pierce the corporate veil to go after principals/owners/members is extremely difficult. Although parties make a run at such arguments, this by no means diminishes the difficulty of actually prevailing on the arguments. In order to pierce the corporate a veil, a party has to prove three elements: (1) the person dominated and controlled the company to such an extent that the company had no existence independence of the person, and the company was the mere instrumentality or alter-ego of the person; (2) the person used the company’s corporate form fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and (3) the person’s fraudulent or improper...

22 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Piercing the Corporate Veil is NO Easy Feat

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Piercing a corporate veil to go after principals in their personal capacity is no easy feat. And it should not be viewed as an easy feat. While there are times trying to pierce the corporate veil is warranted, a party still MUST PROVE the requirements to pierce the protections of a corporate structure to go after the principals in charge of the corporate entity. Otherwise, doing business under a corporate structure would be severely emasculated. To pierce the corporate veil, a party must prove the following elements: “(i) [the person] dominated and controlled [the corporate entity] to such an extent that the...