ELIZABETH PEREZ v. OLMEN D. SALMERON
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 7, 2020
Docket3D19-2375
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 7, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-2375
Lower Tribunal No. 18-40128
________________
Elizabeth Perez,
Appellant,
vs.
Olmen D. Salmeron, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces,
Judge.
Reyes & Luna Law Firm, LLC, and Jessica B. Reyes, for appellant.
The Estevez Law Firm, P.A., and Frank J. Estevez, for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
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 plaintiffsโ 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) (โThe 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.โ (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Affirmed.
2