MANUEL D. MEDINA, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND LISETTE MEDINA, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
STAR HOLDING COMPANY NO. 1, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a pledgee of stock certificates under a pledge agreement has sufficient rights to obtain a prejudgment writ of replevin when the pledgor is dissipating the stock's value.
A pledge agreement giving a creditor rights to stock certificates as collateral provides either a contractual right of immediate possession or an unperfected security interest sufficient to support a prejudgment replevin action.
[1] A pledge agreement requiring a debtor to pledge stock certificates as additional collateral for a loan creates either a contractual right of immediate possession or an un…
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 intelligenceStar Holding Company sought a prejudgment writ of replevin against a stock certificate owned by Manuel Medina, claiming rights under a pledge agreemen…
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 Pledge Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Manuel D. Medina appeals an adverse non-final order, as amended, directing the issuance of a prejudgment writ of replevin against a certain stock certificate owned by the defendant. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), and affirm.
The remedy of prejudgment re-plevin is available to the plaintiff Star Holding Company No. 1, Inc. because (a) it is entitled to possession of the claimed stock certificate under a pledge agreement entered into between the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest and the defendant, § 78.-055(2), Fla.Stat. (1989), and (b) the defendant was in the process of dissipating the economic value of the stock certificate by stripping the assets of the company for which the stock was issued, thus wasting the value of the stock certificate.
Section 78.068(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
We conclude, contrary to the defendant’s argument, that the pledge agreement which requires the defendant to pledge the stock certificate as additional collateral for an underlying loan gave the plaintiff’s predecessor-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 transfer of certificates).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)
Authorities Cited
- Lease Fin. Corp. v. Nat'l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Transtar Corp. v. Intex Rec. Corp., 570 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Finizio v. Shubow, 557 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)