CMI CREDIT INSURANCE, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
CMI Credit Insurance appealed a trial court's decision holding that an oral contract between CMI and Mr. Mobile Homes, Inc. for the sale of mobile homes was not enforceable against a surety bond issued to Mr. Mobile Homes and guaranteed by USF&G. The court affirmed, finding that the bond statute and bond terms explicitly required a written contract to trigger bond coverage.
The bond was not applicable to CMI's loss because the bond, pursuant to both the applicable statute and the bond's own terms, provided coverage only for losses incurred pursuant to written contracts. Since the agreement between CMI and Mr. Mobile Homes was oral and undocumented, CMI's loss fell outside the scope of statutory protection.
[1] A surety bond required for a mobile home dealer's license, pursuant to Florida Statute § 320.77(11), protects against losses resulting from a dealer's failure to comply w…
[2] An oral agreement between a mobile home dealer and another party for the sale of mobile homes does not fall within the protection of a surety bond conditioned upon compli…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The bond . . shall be conditioned upon the mobile home dealer's complying with the conditions of any written contract made by him in connection with the sale or exchange of any mobile home . . .”
Establishes the statutory requirement that bond coverage is limited to written contracts under § 320.77(11), Fla.Stat.(1975)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Mobile Homes, Inc. was a Florida-licensed mobile home dealership required to maintain a surety bond under Florida statute § 320.77(11). CMI and Mr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
McCORD, Chief Judge.
Appellant CMI Credit Insurance, Inc., (CMI) appeals the trial court’s decision on rehearing that an oral contract between CMI and appellee, Mr. Mobile Homes, Inc., was not enforceable against a bond on Mr. Mobile Homes which was guaranteed by appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). We affirm.
Mr. Mobile Homes, Inc., is a mobile home dealership licensed in Florida. The bond in question was issued pursuant to § 320.-77(11), Fla.Stat.(1975). That statute provides, in pertinent part:
“(11) Bond Annually, before any license shall be issued to a mobile home dealer, the applicant shall deliver to the department a good and sufficient surety bond, . . The bond . . shall be conditioned upon the mobile home dealer’s complying with the conditions of any written contract made by him in connection with the sale or exchange of any mobile home . . . . The bond shall be to the department and in favor of any person who shall suffer any loss as a result of any violation of the conditions hereinabove contained. . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
The terms of the bond itself provide as follows, in pertinent part:
“The condition of the above obligation [bond] is such that:
sfc He sfc * sfc %
Whereas, the above named principal is required as a condition precedent to his appointment as such dealer to deliver annually to the obligee hereto a good and sufficient surety bond for the license period for protection of any person who shall suffer loss as a result of any failure to comply with the conditions of any written contract made by such dealer in connection with the sale or exchange or any mobile home . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
From the language of the applicable statute and the bond itself, we conclude that the bond would be applicable in this case only to losses incurred pursuant to a written contract.
The facts show that CMI suffered a loss when Mr. Mobile Homes failed to pay to CMI the proceeds from the sale of three mobile homes which belonged to CMI. The trial court correctly found that the agreement between CMI and Mr. Mobile Homes by which Mr. Mobile Homes handled the sale of the three mobile homes for CMI was an oral agreement. No written contract covering the arrangement between them was produced. CMI’s loss is not within the protection of § 320.77(11), Fla.Stat.(1975).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.