FORT LAUDERDALE COLLECTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
POSIMATAS ROSAMELIA AND DEBRA ROSAMELIA, 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.
Fort Lauderdale Collection, Inc. appealed a trial court order conditioning replevin of a Porsche on posting a $45,000 bond. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida statute § 78.067(2) does not require a plaintiff to post a bond when seeking replevin if it establishes a preliminary right to possession; only the defendant may post a bond to stay the replevin order pending final adjudication.
A trial court cannot require a plaintiff to post a bond as a condition of obtaining a replevin order if the plaintiff establishes a preliminary right to possession. The statute only permits a bond requirement when the defendant files an undertaking to stay the replevin order pending final adjudication.
[1] A plaintiff seeking replevin under section 78.067(2), Florida Statutes, is not required to post a bond if the court determines the plaintiff is entitled to possession of…
[2] A defendant seeking to stay a writ of replevin must file a written undertaking executed by an approved surety in an amount equal to the value of the property.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 order shall be stayed pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties, however, 'if the defendant files with the court a written undertaking executed by a surety approved by the court in an amount equal to the value of the property.'”
Establishes that only the defendant may post a bond to stay replevin, not the plaintiff
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFort Lauderdale Collection, Inc. (FLCI), a car seller, sold a Porsche to the Rosarnelias and claimed the appellees owed additional money due to an all…
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 Invited Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fort Lauderdale Collection, Inc. (FLCI), a car seller, appeals a non-final order allowing it to replevy a Porsche car from appellees Posimatas and Debra Rosamelia, conditioned on appellant’s posting a $45,000 bond. We reverse.
The litigation arose from a dispute over how much the appellees owed on the Porsche following appellant’s alleged mistake in the contract figures. Appellant claimed it inadvertently wrote in a $36,000 trade allowance, when the agreed amount for appellees’ two trade-in vehicles was to be $26,000. Unable to resolve the dispute, appellant filed suit and sought replevin of the Porsche pursuant to section 78.067(2), Florida Statutes (1995). The statute provides that following a hearing, if the court determines the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the property involved, it shall issue an order directing the clerk of the court to issue a writ of replevin. The order shall be stayed pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties, however, “if the defendant files with the court a written undertaking executed by a surety approved by the court in an amount equal to the value of the property.” (Emphasis supplied.) There is no provision under this section requiring the plaintiff to initially file any bond if it establishes preliminarily a right to possession of the property. T & T Air Charter, Inc. v. Duncan Aircraft Sales, 566 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), supports FLCI’s position it was error for the trial court to require it to post any bond. See also Morse Operations, Inc. v. Superior Rent-A-Car, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Appellees argue the appellant invited any error when, on motion for rehearing, it argued the trial court should at least reduce the bond from the $100,000 amount originally set, to the $45,000 value of the car. Appellant disputes appellees’ position in this regard, and we have no transcript to show whether such invited error occurred. As it would be appellees’ burden to show invited error based on the record, appellees’ argument fails in this respect.
We reverse and remand for the trial court to delete any bond requirement for FLCI.
POLEN, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morse Operations, Inc. v. Superior Rent-A-Car, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- T & T AIR Charter, Inc. v. Duncan Aircraft Sales, 566 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)