Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 7, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-2523 Lower Tribunal No. 22-17871-CA-01 ________________ 865 East 49th Street Associates LLC, Appellant, vs. Valdo Auto Sales Corp., et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Circuit Court Judge. Peter C. Bianchi, Jr., for appellant. No appearance, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and REBULL, JJ. GORDO, J. 865 East appeals summary judgment orders determining liability and granting damages in its favor against Valdo Auto Sales Corp. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). 865 East argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and awarding it zero damages as to its fraud and unjust enrichment claims. 1 We find that contention fails here based on the record before us. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment. Arbor Grove Dev., LLC v. ECS1, Inc., 425 So. 3d 699, 700 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). The “legal operation and effect of a judgment” are reviewed de novo. Boynton v. Canal Authority, 311 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (footnote omitted). “[T]he lack of a transcript is usually fatal to an appellant.” Florida Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Mark J. Feldman, P.A., 262 So. 3d 234, 238 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). But an order on appeal remains reviewable and reversible where “error appears on the face of the order.” Id. At issue is the trial court’s award of zero damages despite its determination of liability on 865 East’s fraud and unjust enrichment claims. Although the existence and amount of damages ordinarily present questions of fact, those questions may be resolved on summary judgment where no 1 The court found liability on 865 East’s claims—including its fraud and unjust enrichment claims—but only awarded $76,199.37 as past due rent for breach of the commercial lease. 2 genuine dispute of material fact exists. See R. Plants, Inc. v. Dome Enterprises, Inc., 221 So. 3d 752, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[A]ny claim for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, or for attorneys fees and costs can be decided by summary judgment . . . . Without a genuine issue of material fact on the amount of damages caused by the breach, summary judgment was appropriate.” (citation omitted)); Avant Design Grp., Inc. v. Aquastar Holdings LLC, 351 So. 3d 62, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The general rule is that the extent of damages determined by a trial court is a question of fact which will be affirmed on appeal if supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quotation omitted)). Critically, 865 East was required to establish damages separate and distinct from the $76,199.37 rent judgment entered against Valdo—rather than a prohibited double recovery on the “same element of damages.” Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Comput. Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding fraud or unjust-enrichment damages are duplicative of a contract award where the plaintiff offers no evidence that they are separate and distinct from the damages suffered on the contract). Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of fact as to separate damages necessarily depends on the record before the trial court. The trial court resolved liability, damages and rehearing only after holding full in court 3 hearings on each—yet 865 East supplied no transcript of any hearing. The gap is compounded by the nature of the liability order. The operative judgment is titled “Agreed Summary Final Judgment as to Liability.” Nothing in the record reveals the scope of what the parties agreed to—including whether 865 East, in agreeing to that judgment, preserved or instead waived any position on the existence, compensability or amount of damages. That agreement was reached at a hearing 865 East did not transcribe, and it furnished no approved statement of the evidence from which the terms of the agreement, or any waiver, might be reconstructed. Accordingly, this Court cannot assume the “agreed” judgment resolved anything more than the liability it recites, or that 865 East preserved a claim to damages the order does not mention. We agree with the trial court that 865 East failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a compensable non duplicative amount of damages on its fraud and unjust enrichment claims based on the record before us. That failure of proof is fatal because 865 East is not entitled to a non-zero award as a matter of law. A plaintiff who establishes liability can still recover nothing. For fraud, a liability judgment does not necessarily establish compensable damages and the plaintiff must separately meet the actual and distinct damages element to recover. See Nat’l Equip. 4 Rental, Ltd. v. Little Italy Rest. & Delicatessen, Inc., 362 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (reversing a damages award because “the judgment debtors produced no facts or evidence to show that they had sustained any damages in type or amount . . . [and reiterating that a]ctual damages and the measure thereof are essential as a matter of law in establishing a claim of fraud”); Steinbauer Associates, Inc. v. Smith, 599 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (recognizing that a “zero [damages] verdict will be upheld” in a fraud action notwithstanding a finding of liability where the evidence supports a finding that the plaintiff sustained no damages); Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings Inc., 955 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted) (affirming the jury’s finding of fraud liability but reversing the damages award where the plaintiff failed to prove damages under the proper measure, stating “[d]amage is of the very essence of an action for fraud or deceit [and w]ithout proof of actual damage the fraud is not actionable”). Unjust enrichment is no different. Without competent, quantified evidence of the value of the benefit conferred, the plaintiff cannot establish compensable damages. See Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc. (“Alvarez I”), 258 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding that “[b]ecause unjust enrichment damages are economic damages, the amount of damages must 5 be measurable and quantifiable” such that they are not “founded on jury speculation or guesswork” but “must rest on some reasonable factual basis”); Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc. (“Alvarez II”), 409 So. 3d 192, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Where there is no evidence to justify any amount on a claim for economic damages [under unjust enrichment], defendant is entitled to judgment on the claim.” (citation omitted)); Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (finding the plaintiff “only presented evidence of the money they hoped to receive” and “presented no evidence of the value of the benefit conferred”). Affirmed. 6