SALINAS v. MOBARAK (2017)

Jorge SALINAS, Appellant, v. Martin MOBARAK, etc., et. al., Appellees.

No. 3D16–1543

Decided: May 31, 2017

Before LAGOA, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

Beasley, Demos & Brown, LLC, and Joseph W. Beasley and Jennifer Perez Alonso, for appellant. Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., and Jeffrey A. Sarrow (Boca Raton), for appellee Martin Mobarak.

Appellant, plaintiff below, Jorge Salinas appeals the trial court's involuntary dismissal of Salinas's claims. We affirm because the evidence adduced at trial by Salinas failed to establish any of the causes of action Salinas asserted against Appellee, defendant below, Martin Mobarak. Kopel vs. Kopel, 117 So. 3d 1147, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), rev'd on other grounds, No. SC13–992 (Fla. Jan. 26, 2017) (explaining that, to establish unjust enrichment claim, evidence of plaintiff conferring direct benefit upon defendant required); Beers vs. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109, 116–17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that imposition of constructive trust requires evidence of fiduciary relationship or evidence that defendant took unconscionable advantage of plaintiff); Edd Helms Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 531 So. 2d 238, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that equitable lien unavailable when contract remedies are adequate).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network