Court affirms wife’s self-help eviction of mistress

Tags

83.67, civil theft, eviction, florida, LANDLORD, self-help, TENANT

A Canadian husband and wife, Paul and Beverly Cutler owned a townhome in Wellington Florida. The husband signed a lease with a Mr. and Mrs. Roger Pelletier listed as the tenants. In reality. the property was occupied by Mrs. Pelletier and her single friend Pamela Caputo.   Ms. Caputo was Mr. Cutler’s mistress and no rent was ever paid.   When Mrs. Cutler discovered this, she had the locks changed and the ladies belongings removed to the garage.

The ladies then proceeded to sue the Cutlers for wrongful eviction and the theft of some items they claimed were missing. The court entered a judgment against the Cutlers for $178,500 as treble compensatory damages and $300,200 as punitive damages. The sting of a mistress scorned!

Most of that sting was reversed on appeal.  The 4^th District Court of Appeal ruled that as Mrs. Cutler did not sign the lease to the jointly owned townhome, that Pelletier and Caputo,   were “guests” of Mr. Cutler, but not lawful tenants. Property held by husband and wife as tenants by the entireties cannot be leased without both spouses joining in the contract. Thus, the judgment for unlawful eviction was overturned. The court also noted that the civil theft statute was changed after the complaint was filed, but before the judgment was entered eliminating punitive damages, so that portion of the judgment was also reversed. The case was remanded to determine the actual value of the missing items at the time of loss, rather than their replacement cost and the judgment was reduced to $12,510.00 plus interest.

 

CUTLER v. PELLETIER

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.

507 So.2d 676

12 Fla. L. Weekly 1255

Advertisements

Damages for dog bite

Tags

767.01, attack, bite, damages, dog, liability, tort, vetrinary bills

 Defendant’s dog attached Plaintiff’s cat in Plaintiff’s garage. As a result Plaintiff incurred $6500 in veterinary bills before the cat died.   Plaintiff sued Defendant

Defendant argued that the measure of damages should be the market value of the cat. The court noted that Section  Florida Statutes, “Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons, domestic animals, or livestock” provides “Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to a person or to any animal included in the definitions of “domestic animal” and “livestock” as provided by s. 585.01.   Thus the owner of a dog is cast virtually in the role of an insurer and is strictly liable for the damage done by his dog.

In cases of injury to animals, the plaintiff ought to recover for expenses reasonably incurred in efforts to cure them in addition to the diminution in their value or their whole value when they are finally lost. The traditional restriction in personal property cases that the cost of repair should not exceed the market or ‘intrinsic’ value of the property should not be applied in a case whether neither market nor ‘intrinsic’ value is capable of calculation and a living creature is involved. However, the court found that as the cat was seventeen years old, $6500 in medical care was excessive, and only awarded $2500.00.

MEACOMES, vs. MORALES, County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. September 22, 2004. 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1073a