Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 713.345
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1246514
...Proof of Misapplication of Funds Next, the Netherlys claim the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support their convictions for misapplication of construction funds. They maintain the trial court erred in admitting claims of lien over defense counsel's objection. [4] *438 Section 713.345, Florida Statutes (1991) (Monies received for real property improvement), provides, in part: Any person, ......
...who receives any payment on account of improving real property must apply such portion of any payment to the payment of all amounts then due and owing for services and labor which were performed on, or materials which were furnished for, such improvement prior to receipt of the payment. § 713.345(1)(a) (emphasis provided)....
...As the plain language of the statute indicates, the level of the offense is not measured by the victim's out-of-pocket loss but is instead measured by that portion of payments made to the builder which were not applied to the victim's property improvements in compliance with subpart (1)(a). § 713.345(1)(a)....
...imony in the record to support this sum. Subcontractor testimony elicited by the State only supports claims of lien totaling $3016.50. We therefore reverse the Netherlys' convictions on count 2 for second-degree misapplication of construction funds. § 713.345(1)(b)2. On remand, the court is directed to reduce the charges to third-degree misapplication and resentence the Netherlys accordingly. § 713.345(1)(b)3....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18624, 2010 WL 4977227
...Specifically, we are concerned with the deleterious impact the trial court’s interpretation of chapter 713 would have upon the construction industry as a whole. We disagree with the trial court’s ultimate determination that CDC Builder’s actions amounted to a violation of sections
713.345 and
713.35, Florida Statutes (2006)....
...n indicates that not only was CDC Builders allowed to withhold a retainage; it was contractually required to do so. In fact, one of the statutory sections developers rely on contemplates contractual agreements whereby one party can withhold payment. Section 713.345(l)(a) states in pertinent part: “[t]his paragraph does not prevent any person from withholding any payment, or any part of a payment, in accordance with the terms of a contract for services, labor, or materials, or pursuant to a bon...
...stated in the interim payment requests. *513 However, even if this Court agreed with the trial court’s factual determination, such violations would only justify criminal sanctions as outlined in the statute. Therefore, while a violation of either section
713.345 or section
713.35 would expose an individual to criminal sanctions, we cannot agree with the trial court that either statute — or chapter 713 interpreted as a whole — would justify the discharge or invalidation of an otherwise valid lien. In fact, in its order discharging the liens, the trial court acknowledges that neither section
713.345 nor section
713.35 allow for discharge....
...n contained therein which would mandate this [cjourt finding that the ultimate claims of lien filed herein, because the interim payment affidavits were false, necessitate the discharge of the liens for noncompliance. The same analysis holds true for section 713.345.” Instead, the trial court relied on its interpretation that chapter 713, when read as a whole, “requires a contractor to comply with all provisions contained therein.” However, this interpretation neither comports with the statutory language nor with precedent in this state....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 93, 1993 Bankr. LEXIS 661, 24 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 287, 1993 WL 136565
...This controversy centers around the failure of the Debtor to pay the laborers and materialmen, which the Plaintiffs paid, and now claim is owed to them by Sand & Surf in the amount of $8,789.40. As noted earlier, the Contract was not signed by either party. Plaintiffs claim that by virtue of Fla. Stat. § 713.345(1)(a), a fiduciary relationship exists between the homeowner and a building contractor....
...It is clear that § 523(a)(4) requires the defalcation to have occurred while the Debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity in order for the debt to be non-dischargeable. In support of her Motion, the Debtor argues that no fiduciary relationship existed between her and the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs rely on Fla.Stat. § 713.345(1)(a), which is entitled "Monies *352 received for real property improvements; penalty for misuse," to establish the fiduciary relationship between themselves and the Debtor. Fla.Stat. § 713.345(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part: (1)(a) A person, firm, or corporation, or an agent, officer, or employee thereof, who receives any payment on account of improving real property must apply such portion of any payment to the payment of al...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 106377
...line dried up and Jemison used his personal funds to make up shortfalls. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found that Seabridge committed civil theft as defined by section
772.11, Florida Statutes (1991), by reason of violation of sections
713.345 and
812.014, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...In addition, the trial court found, inter alia, that Jemison was liable as a primary qualifying agent for Seabridge under chapter 489, Florida Statutes (1993). We reject the trial court's determination that Seabridge can be found guilty of civil theft as defined by section
772.11 [1] , by reason of violation of sections
713.345 and
812.014. If we thought that a violation of section
713.345 was included within the remedial provisions of the civil theft statute, section
772.11, we would agree that the corporation could be liable for the civil theft claim. The statutes, however, will not bear a construction of that kind. In the first place, section
713.345(1)(b) expressly says that a person who violates subsection
713.345(1)(a) is guilty of the crime of " misapplication of construction funds [e.s.]." It does not denominate the crime as theft. Second, section
772.11 is part of the chapter dealing with civil remedies for criminal practices. *850 In 30 subparagraphs, section
772.102 designates each statutory provision included within the civil remedies afforded by chapter 772, but section
713.345 is not one of the crimes listed. Finally, section
772.11 itself limits its remedy to violations of only sections
812.012 through
812.037. But there is nothing in the specified statutes deeming a violation of section
713.345 to be the crime of theft under sections
812.012-812.037. Frankly, if we were to apply the Blockburger test, see section
775.021(4), to a person who had been charged with a violation of both
713.345 and section
812.014 for a single episode involving only the same construction funds, we would find separate convictions legally permissible because they involve disparate elements....
...dually, as primary qualifying agent of Seabridge pursuant to chapter 489 is reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's final judgment determining Seabridge had committed civil theft as defined by section
772.11 through violation of sections
713.345 and
812.014....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6566, 1997 WL 329123
PER CURIAM. Following his conviction for the third-degree felony of misapplication of construction *564 funds in violation of section 713.345(l)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993), appellant seeks review, raising a number of issues. Only one merits discussion. Appellant claims that section 713.345(l)(b) is facially unconstitutional because it violates Florida’s constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt without proof of fraud....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12556, 1994 WL 714380
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge. Geoffrey C. Weber appeals his judgment and sentence for misapplication of construction funds in violation of section 713.345, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)....
...At the close of the state’s case Weber moved for judgment of acquittal arguing, in part, that the state failed to establish that funds were used for a wrongful purpose. The trial judge denied Weber’s motion, concluding that the statute did not require proof of wrongful application. Section 713.345, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14360, 1998 WL 25615
PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment and sentence and write to address only appellant’s challenge to an aspect of his sentence. Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the charge of misappropriating construction funds, in violation of section 713.345, Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15941, 1998 WL 881319
PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s judgment for damages and costs but reverse the award for attorney’s fees. The statutes relied upon to award the fees, section
713.345 and section
713.29, Florida Statutes (1995), are not applicable to this action. Section
713.345 is a criminal statute that makes no provision for attorney’s fees....
