DOMINGO VEGA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS W. HUGHES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AMERICAN HOME FURNITURE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Appellant Vega appealed a replevin order granting possession of personal property to Hughes and American Home Furniture Company based on alleged default under a conditional sales contract. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously denied Vega the right to present testimony at the show cause hearing and failed to properly calculate the bond amount under statutory guidelines.
The trial court erred in denying the appellant the right to present testimony at the show cause hearing as required by Section 78.065(2)(e), Florida Statutes, and in setting the bond without following the statutory formula requiring the bond to be set at twice the value of the goods or twice the balance due on the debt, whichever is lesser.
[1] A trial court errs by denying a party the right to present testimony at a pre-judgment replevin show cause hearing when the order to show cause and statute authorize such…
[2] Statutory provisions authorizing pre-judgment replevin require that a bond be set in an amount based on the value of the goods replevied or the balance due on the debt, w…
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 provisions of the order to show cause and those of Section 78-065(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1975) granted the appellant the right to present testimony at the subsequent hearing.”
Establishes that the appellant had a statutory right to present testimony under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVega filed a complaint alleging improper collection practices. Hughes and American Home Furniture Company filed a counterclaim seeking possession of p…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This appeal involves the construction of Florida statutes authorizing pre-judgment replevin.
In response to a complaint filed by appellant alleging improper collection practices, appellees, Thomas W. Hughes and American Home Furniture Company, counterclaimed seeking possession of personal property by virtue of appellant’s alleged default under a conditional sales contract. In conjunction therewith, appellees sought a writ of replevin. An order to show cause was thereafter issued and a hearing was held on September 15, 1978. The order to show cause specifically provided that the appellants:
may appear personally or by way of an attorney and present testimony at his behalf at the time of the hearing. .
Notwithstanding this provision of the order the trial court refused to allow the appellant to present testimony at the hearing and ordered the writ of replevin to issue upon the posting by American Home of a $1,000.00 bond.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in refusing to hear testimony and in setting the amount of the bond. We agree and reverse. The provisions of the order to show cause and those of Section 78-065(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1975) granted the appellant the right to present testimony at the subsequent hearing. Presumably, it was because of the mandate of Section 78.-065(2)(e) that the provisions authorizing testimony were included in the show cause order. In any case, it was error for the trial court to thereafter deny the appellant the right to present testimony.
We also agree with appellant that Section 78.068(3) is applicable and requires that the bond be set in the amount of twice the value of the goods replevied or twice the balance due on the debt, whichever is lesser. Using these provisions as guidelines, there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that bond should be posted in the amount of $1,000.00.
Accordingly, in order to provide appellant the opportunity to present testimony at the show cause hearing, and for the setting of the bond under the appropriate statutory guidelines, this cause is hereby reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waite Aircraft Corp. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 430 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…“in excess of” $110,000. In the absence of a transcript of the bond hearing or some other supporting evidence of value, we cannot determine whether the trial court properly set the amount of the prejudgment replevin bond at $220,000. Vega v. Hughes, 370 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of appellants’ motion to dissolve the prejudgment writ of replevin and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the amount of bond required to continue the writ in force. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. A…
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…relief, regardless of (he ex parte nature of the action. See, e.g., Prestige Rent-A-Car, 656 So.2d at 546; Unicom , Star, Inc. v. La Corrida Restaurante, Inc., 591 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 4th Dist.CtApp.1991); Vega v. Hughes, 370 So.2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct.App.1979). The Defendant cites T and T Air Charter, Inc. v. Duncan Aircraft Sales, Inc., 566 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1990) as holding that no bond must be posted unless the proceeding is ex parte. In T and T…