Jump to content

Possible FL caselaw for defense against Money Lent


Recommended Posts

I have been having a hard time with finding evidentiary requirements for Money lent in FL, the FRCP has almost nothing, and I seem to see that lawsuits are using it more and more with nothing to back it up. I found the following case and while its big money, the plaintiff alleged money lent and and the defendant requested dismissal for failure to state claim, the defendant originally won and then lost in appeal. However the court does a good job at defining that Money Lent CoA has to be more than just saying it with no evidence.

Anyone think this will be good caselaw for us small fry in FL county courts? Any lawyers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE chime in.

The following is taken from the first motion to dismiss that was granted located here - Google Scholar

III. ANALYSIS

A. Count III – Money Lent

Star Capital seeks dismissal of Count III because Plaintiffs do not allege the existence of a loan to Star Capital. (See Mot. 4). “An action for money lent is an action at law which lies whenever there has been a payment of money from the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan.” 42 C.J.S. IMPLIED CONTRACTS § 2 (2010). In order to state a claim for money lent, a plaintiff must

allege: (1) money was delivered to the defendant, (2) the money was intended as a loan, and (3) the loan has not been repaid. See 66 Am. Jur. 2d RESTITUTION AND IMPLIED CONTRACTS § 171 (2010)

1 (citing Doughty v. Sullivan, 661 A.2d 1112, 1123 (Me. 1995)); cf. Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.936 (implying the three elements in the pleading form).2

Here, the allegations of the Complaint, even when read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, do not establish the second element — that the money deposited into Star Capital’s bank account was intended as a loan. Plaintiffs claim “Star Capital owes Paladin . . . $750,000 . . . that is due with interest since March 9, 2009, for money lent by Paladin to Star Capital in September 2008.” (Compl. ¶ 23). It should be noted the language of this pleading mimics a fill-in-the-blank pleading example provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.936. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in Twombly clearly requires more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action,” 550 U.S. at 555, or “naked assertion” devoid of “further factual enhancement,” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Plaintiffs allege neither a written, oral, nor an implied agreement to lend money to Star Capital, nor other facts that make this cause of

action plausible against this Defendant. To the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate their general allegation the money was “deposited into Star Capital’s bank account, for the benefit of Goldstein” into their specific allegation that Star Capital is liable for money lent. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17–18). This description is more typical of a trust — rather than loan relationship — between Plaintiffs and Star Capital. See Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Gaines Const. Co., 199 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (“If the intention is that the money shall be kept or used as a separate fund for the benefit of the

depositor, or third person a ‘trust’ is created. However, if the intention is that the person receiving the money shall have unrestricted use thereof . . . a ‘debt’ is created.”). Because the Plaintiffs do not plead facts from which the Court can reasonably infer the money transferred to Star Capital was

intended as a loan to Star Capital, they fail to state a cause of action for money lent.

_______________________________________________________________

1 Plaintiffs cite Bannoura v. Bannoura, 655 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (per curiam), for the proposition that to sustain a cause of action for money lent Plaintiffs “need only allege that money is due.”

(See Resp. 4 [ECF No. 22]). Plaintiffs’ conclusion overreaches; Bannoura only supports the proposition that money being due is one element of a cause of action for money lent. See generally 655 So. 2d at 1188.

Additionally, “being due” implies the existence of an obligation to repay. Plaintiffs have not alleged any factual information to support their allegation the money was lent to Star Capital. Authority on the elements of a prima facie case for money lent is scant in Florida jurisprudence.

2 However, it is axiomatic that to recover money lent, a plaintiff must allege the existence of a loan to the defendant. See Pick v. Adams, 123 So. 547, 549 (Fla. 1929) (“The action, if any at all exists in favor of the plaintiff, must rest upon some express or implied promise of the defendant to pay the debt alleged to be due. . . . The evidence introduced can hardly be deemed . . . to support [the] common count[] for money lent tothe defendant.”)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They consider a credit card transaction to be money advanced on your behalf to the merchant, thus "money lent." It is one of several boilerplate causes of action they all use. They didn't technically write a loan and hand you a check or cash, they paid your purchases for you. Same basic thing. Judges don't like it when pro ses try to parse the law and do an end run around the fact that they used the credit card. I suggest you not raise this in court, any judge will kill you with three simple questions. Usually they have two or three counts, they can prevail on any one of them. You need to be more inventive in your defense. Also, don't disappear. How about that discovery? Did you respond? We gave you all the answers. You may have made a fatal error. If they didn't file any motion against you for this, send in the responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would use it. Look at allegation #5 in Livingston's Complaint:

5) Defendant(s), LilSweetie owe(s) Plaintiff $9000.00 that is due with interest since August 29th, 2008, for money lent by Plaintiff to defendant.

This is from the Paladin case:

Plaintiffs claim "Star Capital owes Paladin . . . $750,000 . . . that is due with interest since March 9, 2009, for money lent by Paladin to Star Capital in September 2008." (Compl. ¶ 23). It should be noted the language of this pleading mimics a fill-in-the-blank pleading example provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.936.

Look at the 2 highlighted phrases. They're exactly the same. The court says it looks like the Plaintiffs just filled in the blanks of a form.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in Twombly clearly requires more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." 550 U.S. at 555, or "naked assertion" devoid of "further factual enhancement," Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Plaintiffs allege neither a written, oral, nor an implied agreement to lend money to Star Capital, nor other facts that make this cause of action plausible against this Defendant.

The court pointed out that the Plaintiff in Paladin had not done enough to prove their cause of action (money lent). The court even used a quote from the Supreme Court which basically states that one must do more than just claim that money was lent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

750 large? This was no credit card case. What was it? I've looked at about 2,000 credit card cases so far, never saw one won or dismissed on the money lent count. I think the further factual enhancement would be the credit card statements showing all the stuff the OP bought that was paid for by the credit card company. Twombly is familiar, I remember using this somehow, I'll have to take a look. Iqbal too. I think these were mortgage cases I cited in my case against the guy with the nice tan and white hair. You know who he is, all you Countrywide customers? There probably is a fill in the blank pleading form. A lot of states use these now. Sounds like the lawyers for Paladin dropped the ball. What a shock, a stupid lawyer. Can't be, I gotta lie down and take a Tylenol. Paladin was cool, Richard Boone, Have Gun Will Travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

750 large? This was no credit card case. What was it? I've looked at about 2,000 credit card cases so far, never saw one won or dismissed on the money lent count. I think the further factual enhancement would be the credit card statements showing all the stuff the OP bought that was paid for by the credit card company. Twombly is familiar, I remember using this somehow, I'll have to take a look. Iqbal too. I think these were mortgage cases I cited in my case against the guy with the nice tan and white hair. You know who he is, all you Countrywide customers? There probably is a fill in the blank pleading form. A lot of states use these now. Sounds like the lawyers for Paladin dropped the ball. What a shock, a stupid lawyer. Can't be, I gotta lie down and take a Tylenol. Paladin was cool, Richard Boone, Have Gun Will Travel.

You're correct. Paladin wasn't a credit card case. BUT, their cause of action for money lent failed because that specific cause of action was not supported.

As I pointed out, the phrase in the OP's Complaint and in the Paladin case relating to the cause of action are identical.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80, thats what I was looking to use the Paladin case for was the lack of supporting evidence, but I was also looking a Twombly. Which do you think would be better to use for that? and BTW in my latest rough draft I am currently using Twombly with that same quote from the ruling. I just want to make sure Money lent can't haunt me because the requirements to use it are so broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80, thats what I was looking to use the Paladin case for was the lack of supporting evidence, but I was also looking a Twombly. Which do you think would be better to use for that? and BTW in my latest rough draft I am currently using Twombly with that same quote from the ruling. I just want to make sure Money lent can't haunt me because the requirements to use it are so broad.

You don't have to use one or the other. You can use both. Twombly stated more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." In my opinion, that means "you can't say it applies, you've got to show it in some way."

The court in the Paladin case pointed out that the Complaint "mimics a fill-in-the-blank pleading example provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.936." That appears to be what your JDB did.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.