SANFORD (SANDY) KAY AND AL MARTIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ATLANTIC DISCOUNT CO., 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.
In this replevin action, Atlantic Discount Co. sued to recover a Cadillac automobile sold under a conditional sales contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Atlantic Discount, and appellants Kay and Martin—who held a floor plan mortgage on the vehicle—appealed, arguing they were bona fide purchasers without notice entitled to priority over the conditional sales contract.
The appellants' claim that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice is without merit, and the appellee is not estopped from asserting its claim under the conditional sales contract. Those who engage in floor plan financing assume the risk that the borrower-dealer may dishonestly sell the financed vehicle in the retail course of trade to a good faith purchaser, thereby giving that purchaser good title despite the finance company's security interest.
“assumes the risk of the borrower's dishonesty or fraud in that the borrower can sell a good title to a purchaser in good faith for value in the course of retail trade even though the automobile is encumbered by the security interest of the finance company.”
Establishes that floor plan lenders assume the risk that a dealer may sell the financed vehicle to a good faith purchaser, who takes good title despite the lender's security interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Kay and Martin floor plan financed several automobiles for a car dealer, including a Cadillac. While under the floor plan financing, the de…
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 Trust Receipt Financing cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a replevin action instituted by appellee, the holder of a conditional sales contract for the recovery of a Cadillac automobile. The trial judge rendered summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellants have appealed from the summary judgment.
The Cadillac automobile in question was one of several automobiles floor plan financed by appellants for a car dealer. While the Cadillac was under the floor plan financing, the dealer sold it and took back as part payment a conditional sales contract which was assigned to the appellee. Neither the floor plan mortgage nor the conditional sales contract were recorded with the Motor Vehicle Commissioner of Florida. Shortly after the sale of the Cadillac, the floor plan mortgage was paid off by the dealer. There followed a second floor plan mortgage by the dealer to the appellants. The purchaser of the automobile failed to make the third payment due under the terms of the conditional sales contract. In the meantime, and after the default on the conditional sales contract, the appellants repossessed the Cadillac from the dealer where it had been placed by the owner to be sold. Learning that appellants had possession of the automobile the appellee instituted this replevin action.
Basically the appellants contend that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice and that the appellee is estopped to assert its claim of lien under the terms of the conditional sales contract. See § 319.-27(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This contention is wholly without merit.
The Supreme Court of this state, in Volusia Discount Co. v. Alexander K-F Motors, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 302, 305, in commenting on the risks assumed by those who floor plan for automobile dealers, pointed out that one who lends under a floor plan arrangement “assumes the risk of the borrower’s dishonesty or fraud in that the borrower can sell a good title to a purchaser in good faith for value in the course of retail trade even though the automobile is encumbered by the security interest of the finance company.” It appears clear in the instant case that the appellants relied on the honesty and good faith of the dealer not to dispose of the automobile which he had in his possession and under trust receipt or floor plan financing to the *659appellants. From the turn of events, their reliance on the dealer in this instance was obviously misplaced.
Notwithstanding the comments of the Supreme Court in the Volusia Discount Co. case, there is also the proposition facing the appellants that they were responsible for placing in motion circumstances which resulted in their own loss and would appear to bring them within the principles announced in Glass v. Continental Guaranty Corp., 81 Fla. 687, 88 So. 876, 25 A.L.R. 312.
Failing to find reversible error, it follows that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Glass v. Cont'l Guar. Corp., 81 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1921)
- Volusia Disc. Co., Inc. v. Alexander K-F Motors, 88 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1956)