HURI ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SPECTACULAR MIDWAYS, INC., 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.
Huri Enterprises sought review of an order denying its counterclaim for a writ of replevin on the ground that the property at issue was located in the Bahamas, outside the trial court's jurisdiction. The court affirmed, holding that replevin actions require in rem jurisdiction over property located within the state, and that section 78.03 of the Florida Statutes mandates the action be brought in the county where the property is located.
A replevin action cannot be successfully maintained when the property is located outside the state. While the lower court has jurisdiction over the parties and may enter judgment for the monetary value of the property, it cannot require seizure and return of property located outside the state's borders.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction over a replevin action when the property sought to be replevied is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
[2] The venue and jurisdiction for a replevin action are determined by the location of the property sought to be replevied.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 action shall be brought in the court in the county where the property is which has jurisdiction of the value of the property sought to be replevied.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for venue and jurisdiction in replevin actions under section 78.03, Florida Statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuri Enterprises filed a counterclaim for replevin seeking return of property. The property at issue was located in the Bahamas. The property had been…
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 In Rem Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant, Huri Enterprises, Inc., seeks review of an order denying a counterclaim for writ of replevin. The denial was based on the judge’s determination that he was without jurisdiction in the replevin action since the property was located in the Bahamas. The appellee also asserted below that the court was without jurisdiction since the item to be replevied was not shown to be in defendant’s dominion and control. However, the court’s ruling was based solely on its determination that the property had to be within the county for jurisdiction to lie.
Section 78.03, Florida Statutes (1987) provides as follows:
78.03 Venue and jurisdiction.—The action shall be brought in the court in the county where the property is which has jurisdiction of the value of the property sought to be replevied. When property consists of separate articles, the value of any one of which is within the jurisdiction of a lower court but taken together will exceed that jurisdiction, the plaintiff shall not divide the property to give jurisdiction to the lower court to enable plaintiff to bring separate actions therefor. The complaint seeking replevin in the instant case asks that the property be returned to the appellant. The nature of the action is possessory, therefore requiring in rem jurisdiction over the subject matter. As stated in 77 C.J.S. Replevin § 84 (1952):
An action for replevin cannot be successfully maintained unless the property is within the state and subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.... The jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine an action in replevin is dependent on the issuance and service of the writ which brings the property under the control of the court for the purpose of rendering judgment.
See also Marston v. Rose-Elash, 720 S.W. 2d 783 (Mo.App.1986) (court is without jurisdiction for replevin action where item to be seized was located out of the county).
The appellant’s reliance on section 78.12, Florida Statutes (1987) for its contention that jurisdiction may be obtained over property outside the county is misplaced. Section 78.12 deals with property that is removed from the county after the initial replevin writ is issued, but prior to the writ being served. In the instant case, the testimony below indicates that the property was removed prior to the filing of the counterclaim for replevin.
The lower court has jurisdiction over the parties and may properly enter a judgment for the value of the property. However, it cannot require that the property be seized and returned. The lower court ruled correctly in finding that it had no jurisdiction over the replevin action.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Advantage CAR Rental & Sales, 656 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…outside the state. Publix Super Markets v. Cheesbro Roofing, 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Replevin is a possessory action and therefore requires in rem jurisdiction over the subject matter. Huri Enterprises, Inc. v. Spectacular Midways, Inc., 530 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Williams Management Enterprises, Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). An action for replevin cannot be successfully maintained unless the property is within the state and subject to the jurisdiction of its court…