Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 11, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-2898
Lower Tribunal No. 12-22426
________________
Brenda Williams, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Marye Johnson, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.
Rebull, Judge.
Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Daniel S. Weinger and Robin Bresky (Boca
Raton), for appellants.
Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Jacqueline C. Ledón and Anna-Bo
Emmanuel, for appellees.
Before EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Brenda Williams and Epiphany Community Development Corp.
appeal from the trial court’s entry of judgment in accordance with appellees’
motion for directed verdict in favor of appellees, Marye Johnson and
Comprehensive Outreach Programs, Inc. Upon our de novo review, we hold that
the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion and entered judgment in their
favor. Appellants sought damages on a theory of unjust enrichment. However,
given the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter,
“claims arising out of that contractual relationship will not support a claim for
unjust enrichment.” Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So. 3d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009),
disapproved of on other grounds, Bank of New York Mellon v. Condo. Ass’n of
La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2015). See also Braham v. Branch
Banking and Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Diamond “S”
Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) for the
proposition that plaintiff could not pursue unjust enrichment claim where express
contract existed concerning the same subject matter); Atlantis Estate Acquisitions,
Inc., v. DePierro, 125 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449
So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
2