PEREZ v. SALMERON (2020)

Elizabeth and Andre Perez, defendants below, appeal a final summary judgement entered against them and in favor Miriam Y. Lam and Olmen D. Salmeron, plaintiffs below, on the plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. See Duty Free World, Inc. v. Miami Perfume Junction, Inc., 253 So. 3d 689, 693-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are: (1) plaintiff has conferred a 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 first paying the value thereof to the plaintiff. The basis of the remedy of unjust enrichment is to provide restitution where one person has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another. At the core of the law of restitution and unjust enrichment is the principle that a party who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.