THE BANK OF PASCO COUNTY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BALLARD BEASLEY AND MARY M. BEASLEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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The Bank of Pasco County appealed a summary judgment for conversion based on failure to give notice of sale under an outdated statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the sale was governed by the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, not the repealed statute cited by the trial court.
The trial court erred in applying the repealed statute Fla.Stat. 685.02 to govern the September 27, 1967 sale. The sale was governed by the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, which took effect January 1, 1967. The summary judgment on liability must be reversed and the case remanded for trial.
[1] A statute repealed prior to the sale of collateral governs the disposition of that collateral.
[2] A cause of action for conversion based on failure to provide notice of collateral sale is governed by the law in effect at the time of the sale.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It appears to this court that the trial court erred in basing its ruling on Fla.Stat. 685.02, F.S.A. This statute was repealed by Chap. 65-254, Laws of Florida 1965, effective January 1, 1967, enacting the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”
The court identifies the critical error: application of a repealed statute to a transaction occurring after the effective date of the repeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Beasleys borrowed $10,000 and $24,000 from the bank in 1963, with Jack Harkins co-signing both notes. Stock was pledged as collateral. After Harki…
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 Florida Uniform Commercial Code cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 15 and December 30, 1963, appellees borrowed $10,000 and $24,000 respectively from the Bank of Pasco County to purchase certain stock. The stock was pledged as collateral security. The two notes evidencing the transactions were signed by the Beasleys and by one Jack Harkins. Two Thousand Dollars was paid on the $10,000 note, and that note was can-celled and a new note in the amount of $8,000 was issued.
Jack Harkins died in 1964 and his estate was probated in Tennessee. Since no other payments were made on the notes, the Bank filed a claim against the estate of Jack Harkins in Tennessee. A judgment was obtained against the estate for the full amount unpaid on the two notes, being $32,000, plus interest, fees and costs of suit. The estate paid the Bank $17,854.85 as partial payment of said judgment. On *24September 27, 1967, the Bank sold the stock pledged as security on the notes for $37,852.50. These funds were distributed as follows: To the estate of Jack Harkins $17,854.85 as reimbursement for moneys paid; to the Bank for the unpaid balance of the loan $19,145.87; to the Beasleys the excess money $851.78.
On September 8, 1969, the Beasleys brought suit against the Bank for conversion of the stock because of failure to give notice of sale as required by Fla.Stat. 685.-02, F.S.A. Beasleys further alleged that the Bank wrongfully reimbursed the estate the sum of $17,854.85. The Bank answered denying the wrongful disbursement of funds and set forth that Jack Harkins endorsed the note for the accommodation of the Beasleys, and was therefore entitled to reimbursement.
The trial court entered a summary judgment as to liability against the Bank on the basis that notice of the sale of the stock was not given in accordance with Fla.Stat. 685.02, F.S.A. The court then entered a summary final judgment against the Bank on December 9, 1970, holding as a matter of law that the Bank had no right to reimburse the estate of Jack Harkins out of the proceeds of the sale of stock. The Bank brings this appeal.
It appears to this court that the trial court erred in basing its ruling on Fla.Stat. 685.02, F.S.A. This statute was repealed by Chap. 65-254, Laws of Florida 1965, effective January 1, 1967, enacting the Florida Uniform Commercial Code. The sale of the stock in question took place on September 27, 1967, and was therefore governed by the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.
The summary judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.