TRANSTAR CORPORATION, F/K/A ERA CONSOLIDATED, AND D/B/A ERA LEISURE PRODUCTS, APPELLANT,
v.
INTEX RECREATION CORP., 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.
Affirmed denial of motion to dissolve prejudgment writ of replevin; replevin lies under Fla. Stat. § 78.068 when defendant fails to pay for goods, without requiring seller to hold a security interest.
A prejudgment writ of replevin may be issued under Florida Statute § 78.068 when a defendant has failed to make payment as agreed, without requiring the creditor to hold a security interest or other independent possessory interest in the goods.
[1] A prejudgment writ of replevin under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTranstar purchased goods from Intex but failed to pay; Intex sought and obtained replevin of the goods.…
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 Prejudgment Writ Of Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Transtar Corporation appeals a non-final order denying its Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writ of' Replevin. We affirm. After appellant purchased certain goods from appellee but failed to pay, appellee successfully sought replevin of the goods. The trial court denied appellant’s Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writ of Replevin. It is appellant’s position on appeal that re-plevin does not lie in the absence of a security interest or other independent possessory interest in the goods sought to be replevied. This is clearly wrong. The applicable statute is section 78.068, Florida Statutes (1989), which authorizes the issuance of a prejudgment writ of replevin where “the defendant has failed to make payment as agreed.” We have previously applied this statute in accordance with the position taken by appellee in this case. Landmark First Nat’l Bank of Fort Lauderdale v. Beach Bait & Tackle Shop, Inc., 449 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 459 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1984); Waite Aircraft Corp. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 430 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lease Financing Corp. v. Nat’l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comcoa, Inc. v. The Honorable Jack M. COE, 587 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…overy of improperly replevined property, that 78.068 is constitutionally valid, Gazil, Inc. v. Super Food Services, Inc., 356 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1978),5 and fully enforceable in accordance with its clear terms. Transtar Corp. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 570 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. DDD Appliance Serv. & Sales, Inc., 509 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lease Financing Corp. v. National Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Landmark First Nat’l Bank v. Bea…
-
Medina v. Star Holding Co. NO. 1, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ecessor-in-interest either a contractual right of immediate possession or an unperfected security interest in the subject stock certificate so as to permit it to bring an action for prejudgment replevin. See Transtar Corp. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 570 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Lease Fin. Corp. v. National Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Finizio v. Shubow, 557 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (enforceable security interest in stock created by contract without physical tran…
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…not paid for the goods, even though title to the goods has passed to the buyer and no right of possession has been shown. As support for this proposition, the Defendant cites, among other cases, Transtar Corporation v. Intex Recreation Corp., 570 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App. 1990) and Landmark First National Bank v. Beach Bait and Tackle Shop, Inc., 449 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983). We do not agree that these cases establish the principle for which they are cited. In Transtar,…
Authorities Cited
- Lease Fin. Corp. v. Nat'l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Landmark First Nat'l Bank of Fort Lauderdale v. Beach Bait & Tackle Shop, Inc., 449 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Waite Aircraft Corp. v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 430 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)