Jury Affirms 50/50 Ownership in Miami Family Property Feud
Table of Contents
Case Background
This contentious legal battle unfolded in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The case centered on a dispute over ownership of a single-family property located at 530 N.W. 99th Street. The Plaintiffs, Oscar Manzanares and Shirley Manzanares, initiated the action against the Defendants, Oscar Simeon Exposito and Carmen Cuellar, who were Mr. Manzanares’ uncle and aunt.
The dispute stemmed from events that began in or around August 2020. The family members had reached a joint agreement to pool their financial resources to purchase the property. However, due to the Plaintiffs’ superior credit standing, they had agreed that the deed to the property would initially be placed solely in the Defendants’ names. After the purchase, the Plaintiffs contended that they had continued to pour money into the property, making significant mortgage payments and financing extensive improvements, all under the assumption that they held a legitimate ownership stake. When the Defendants allegedly reneged on the family agreement, the Plaintiffs sought judicial intervention to formally establish their rightful interest in the home.
Cause
The Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2023, advancing claims rooted in property law and equitable principles. The primary cause involved the breach of the initial family agreement regarding joint ownership.
Establishing Equitable Ownership
The fundamental cause the Plaintiffs brought before the Court was the need to legally establish their valid, equitable ownership interest in the home, despite the deed only reflecting the Defendants’ names. They argued that because they had contributed substantial capital and labor, the Court should recognize them as co-owners.
Fraudulent Inducement
The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants had made false statements of material fact specifically, promises of eventual co-ownership which had induced them to make significant payments and improvements to the property. They claimed the Defendants always intended to keep full ownership for themselves, thus misleading the Plaintiffs into funding the property’s maintenance and enhancement.
Unjust Enrichment
Finally, the Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants were unjustly enriched. They had received all the financial benefits, including the Plaintiffs’ mortgage contributions and the value of their property improvements, without ever providing fair compensation or acknowledging the promised ownership share.
Injury
The Plaintiffs’ primary injury was the loss of their rightful ownership interest in the property. They had sustained financial harm from the payments and investments they had made, which the Defendants had effectively converted into personal, sole equity. The Manzanares couple faced displacement and the complete loss of all the capital and labor they had invested into the family home they had believed they shared.
Damages Sought
In the complaint, the Plaintiffs asked the Court for two forms of relief. First, they demanded equitable relief: a Court order establishing their valid ownership interest in the property, often achieved through a legal mechanism like a constructive trust or quiet title action. Second, they sought monetary damages to compensate for the payments, improvements, and other financial losses they had incurred due to the Defendants' actions.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The Defendants responded to the complaint in March 2023, categorically denying the Plaintiffs’ claims. They admitted the Court had jurisdiction over the dispute but staunchly maintained that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought. The Defendants had subsequently filed a demand for a jury trial, which the Court ultimately granted.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Oscar Manzanares | Shirley Manzanares
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Avel Arriera | Victor A. Ruiz, Esq.
Defendant(s): Oscar Simeon Exposito | Carmen Cuellar
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Jorge A. Garcia-Menocal
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence detailing the financial transactions, demonstrating that the Manzanares couple had consistently made payments toward the property. They argued that the totality of the circumstances the close family relationship, the initial agreement to pool resources, and the subsequent payments and extensive improvements overwhelmingly proved that the parties had intended to create a co-ownership venture, regardless of how the deed had been initially titled. They pressed the jury to recognize the equitable truth over the mere legal formalities.
Defense
Defense counsel strongly opposed the existence of any formal co-ownership agreement. They asserted that the property legally belonged only to the Defendants, as the deed had documented. Furthermore, they launched a counterargument regarding the property improvements, arguing that the Plaintiffs had initiated these alterations without the Defendants' proper knowledge or consent. They presented an affirmative defense that some of the work the Plaintiffs had performed was unlicensed and unpermitted, potentially causing future issues with code enforcement and thereby constituting an injury to the Defendants, not a benefit.
Jury Verdict
After hearing all the testimony and arguments, the jury returned a verdict on November 14, 2024, overwhelmingly finding in favor of the Plaintiffs on the key equitable issues. Crucially, the jury determined the ownership percentage: they assigned 50% ownership to Oscar and Shirley Manzanares and the remaining 50% ownership to Oscar Simeon Exposito and Carmen Cuellar.
The jury also found that the Defendants had indeed committed fraudulent inducement and had been unjustly enriched by the Plaintiffs’ payments and improvements. However, for both the fraudulent inducement and the unjust enrichment claims, the jury awarded only $1.00 in nominal damages for each count.
Ultimately, the verdict established the Plaintiffs’ equitable claim to the property. While the monetary awards were nominal, the primary and most significant finding was the legal recognition of the 50/50 joint ownership of the disputed Miami property, resolving the bitter family dispute over who had a right to the home. The Court will now enter a final judgment formalizing this equitable ownership split.
Court Documents