MIDWAY MANUFACTURING CO., APPELLANT,
v.
FAMILY FUN 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying a replevin order when the evidence clearly showed the seller was entitled to possession pending final adjudication.
Midway Manufacturing sold an amusement ride to appellee under an agreement allowing repossession upon two missed payments. Appellee missed payments, a…
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 Right To Immediate Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Midway Manufacturing Company appeals a non-final order denying its right to possession of personal property, entered after a replevin show cause hearing pursuant to section 78.065, Florida Statutes (1995). We have jurisdiction to review this non-final or der because it determines the right to immediate possession of property. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).
Midway sold an amusement ride to appel-lee under an agreement requiring monthly payments, and providing that appellee’s failure to make two payments would result in repossession by Midway.
Midway filed this complaint for replevin, as well as other relief, and at the hearing on an order to show cause, the evidence was undisputed that appellee did fail to make two monthly payments, entitling Midway to repossess. The trial court did not explain why it denied Midway’s right to possession of the property; however, the court did erroneously admit parole testimony by appellee’s president that he was told that he could fall a couple of payments behind without having a problem.
At a show cause hearing under section 78.067(2), Florida Statutes (1995) the court must determine “which party, with reasonable probability, is entitled to the possession of the claimed property pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties.” The evidence presented at the hearing established that Midway was entitled to possession of the property under the statutory provision. Morse Operations, Inc. v. Superior Rent-A-Car, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We therefore reverse and direct the trial court to immediately issue a writ of replevin.
DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Innovative Material Sys., Inc. v. Santa Rosa Utils., Inc., 721 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ve to amend and dismissing with prejudice one count of a multi-count eom-pláint. The dismissed count sought replevin of a dredge and related equipment. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). See Midway Mfg. Co. v. Family Fun Corp., 668 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court dismissed the replevin count, and subsequently refused to permit appellant to amend it, because it was “of the opinion that the remedy of replevin ... [wa]s mutually exclusive of the other causes of action” ass…
Authorities Cited
- Morse Operations, Inc. v. Superior Rent-A-Car, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)