BLACK, STARR & FROST, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
PRESTIGE FINANCIAL, 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.
Black, Starr & Frost, a third-party lienor, sued pawnbroker Prestige Financial for wrongfully selling goods subject to the lienor's security interest. The trial court initially ruled for the lienor but reversed itself on rehearing, relying on Florida's pawnbroker statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute does not absolve pawnbrokers of liability to third parties with enforceable security interests.
The statute does not relieve a pawnbroker from liability to third parties with enforceable security interests. Section 715.04 addresses only the pawnbroker's relationship to customers and purchasers, not to third parties, and contains no language indicating legislative intent to absolve pawnbrokers of liability arising from obligations under the U.C.C. Secured Transactions (chapter 679) or other statutes governing disposition of property under lien.
[1] A pawnbroker's liability to a third party with an enforceable security interest is not automatically terminated by a sale of the property under section 715.04, Florida St…
[2] Chapter 715 of the Florida Statutes primarily governs a pawnbroker's relationship with its customer and the purchaser of pawned property, not its obligations to third-par…
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“any sale or disposal of property under this section shall terminate all liability of the pawnbroker and shall vest in the purchaser the right, title and interest of the seller or borrower and the pawnbroker”
The statutory language that the trial court relied upon on rehearing to absolve the pawnbroker of all liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrestige Financial, a pawnbroker, sold goods that were subject to a security interest held by Black, Starr & Frost, a third-party lienor. The sale occ…
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 Security Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
Following a non-jury trial, the court entered a final judgment for the plaintiff, Black, Starr & Frost. On rehearing, the court vacated that judgment and entered an amended final judgment in favor of the defendant, Prestige. We reverse.
By its initial judgment, the trial court found that the defendant, a pawnbroker, was indebted to the plaintiff, a third party lienor, for wrongfully selling goods upon which the plaintiff had an enforceable security interest. On rehearing, the trial court determined that section 715.04, Flor ida Statutes
, compelled a contrary result. That statute, in pertinent part, provides that “... any sale or disposal of property under this section shall terminate all liability of the pawnbroker and shall vest in the purchaser the right, title and interest of the seller or borrower and the pawnbroker.”
The 1985 amendment to this statute substituted the quoted language for a provision that terminated “all liability of the pledgee to the pledgor.” The appellee asserts that the new language indicates an intent to absolve pawnbrokers of all liability, including that owed to third parties. However, we note that chapter 715 does not concern a pawnbroker’s relationship to parties other than the customer and the purchaser. Section 715.04 does not purport to relieve a pawnbroker from all liability it might otherwise incur to third parties by virtue of obligations not in conflict with chapter 715.
Here, the initial liability, not in issue, was predicated on the creditor’s rights under chapter 679, the U.C.C. — Secured Transactions, and section 818.01, Florida Statutes, which concerns disposing of personal property under lien. We can discern no legislative intent from the context, wording, or history of the statute to absolve a pawnbroker of liability to a third party where the pawnbroker may have notice of the third party’s interest. We note that appellee filed no cross appeal questioning the initial judgment’s finding of liability under chapter 679 and section 818.01. We therefore do not address any issues concerning the validity of, or basis for, that judgment. We also do not address the other issue raised in this appeal, which is now moot.
The amended final judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur. . Repealed by Laws 1989, c. 89-533, § 4, eff. Oct. 2, 1989. See, now, § 538.03, § 538.16.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Naples, 614 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…government has total control of its use.”). . See, e.g., Hayes v. Jones, 147 Fla. 238, 2 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1941) (wearing apparel); Mills v. State, 51 So. 278 (Fla.1910) (agricultural crops or farm products); Black, Starr & Frost v. Prestige Finance, 579 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (tangible goods sold at retail); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hanus, 491 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (truck); Littman v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 425 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (forklift); Rosenberg v. Ryder Leasing, Inc.,…