Voidable Title

26 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Telemart Enters., Inc. v. Holzman
  524 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that UCC § 2-702(2) is not an invalid statutory lien or a disguised state priority, but a valid right of rescission for voidable title. However, the court reversed due to procedural irregularities in the referee's adoption of findings.
• Am. Standard Credit, Inc. v. Nat'l Cement Co.
  643 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that one of the district court's key factual findings was clearly erroneous, requiring reversal of its judgment, but remanded for further proceedings due to lack of findings on other crucial issues.
• In re Fed's. Inc.
  553 F.2d 509· 6th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 14×
  A seller's right of reclamation under UCC § 2-702 is a valid state-created ownership right, not an invalid statutory lien or disguised priority under the Bankruptcy Act, and is superior to the rights of a bankruptcy trustee.
• Johnson & Johnson Prods., Inc. v. DAL Int'l Trading Co.
  798 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing a duty to inquire on a good faith purchaser under the UCC, and the record did not support a finding that Quality King suspected fraud.
• Carlsen v. Coradino Rivera
  382 So. 2d 825· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-04-16 ·cited 11×
  A lessor who entrusts goods to a merchant dealing in such goods empowers that merchant to transfer good title to a buyer in the ordinary course of business, even if the merchant obtained possession through fraud.
• In re Samuels & Co., Inc. v. Mahon
  483 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The Packers and Stockyards Act regulations, establishing a fiduciary duty and requiring identification of carcasses until paid, override the Uniform Commercial Code's lien priority rules for unperfected security interests.
• In re U. S. Fin. Inc. v. U. S. Fin. Inc.
  648 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 6×
  A Chapter X trustee takes title to property subject to a state law right of rescission, but the absolute priority rule bars recovery by a defrauded shareholder if it would subordinate senior claims.
• Gardiner Mfg. Co. v. United States
  479 F.2d 39· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 6×
  A subcontractor cannot recover from the United States under the Tucker Act without a direct contract, and the United States acquired good title to goods delivered under a contract with the prime contractor, even if the prime contractor's check to the subcontractor was dishonored.
• In re Atchison v. Atchison
  832 F.2d 1236· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 4×
  A debtor can grant a valid security interest in collateral they do not personally own, provided they have rights in it, such as permission from the owner to use it as collateral. The parol evidence rule prevents a debtor from denying their intent to grant a security interest when
• United States v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  274 F.2d 366· 9th Cir.· 1959-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the impostor rule applies to government checks, meaning the government cannot recover from banks that paid checks endorsed by impostors who fraudulently obtained them.
• United States v. McCorkle
  143 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2001-01-11 ·cited 3×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny third-party claims from Charter Pacific Bank and United Parcel Service, while granting C.V. Butler Farms, Inc.'s petition, amending the forfeiture order accordingly.
• United States v. Westside Bank
  732 F.2d 1258· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 3×
  A seller of goods who diligently asserts its right of reclamation under Texas UCC § 2.702 retains priority status to traceable proceeds from the sale of those goods, especially after prior lienholders have been fully satisfied.
• In re Daylin, Inc. v. Daylin, Inc.
  596 F.2d 853· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the seller's right of reclamation under U.C.C. § 2-702 is not barred by the Bankruptcy Act, even when the state statute includes "or lien creditor" provisions.
• B.R.L. Equip. Rentals Ltd. v. Seabring Marine Indus., Inc.
  168 F.3d 413· 11th Cir.· 1999-02-23 ·cited 2×
  Seabring Marine sold luxury boats to Bridge Bay Marina using checks that were returned for insufficient funds. When Bridge Bay sold three boats to innocent third parties before Seabring repossessed them, the court held that Bridge Bay acquired voidable title through the worthless
• Interstate Cigar Co. & ICC Ind. Warehouse v. The United States
  928 F.2d 221· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the government, as the plaintiff's potential remedy against its supplier was not an adequate remedy at law to preclude equitable relief.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Ring Power Corp.
  450 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-06-07 ·cited 2×
  Brown & Root seeks to recover a Caterpillar loader stolen from it in Texas and later purchased in good faith by Ring Power Corporation in Louisiana. The court held that Florida's public policy against allowing thieves to transfer title to innocent purchasers outweighs comity cons
• Shell OIL Co. v. Mills OIL Co., Inc.
  717 F.2d 208· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 2×
  A bank with a perfected security interest in inventory is a good faith purchaser under UCC § 2-403, even if it knows the seller has not been paid, and can prevail over the unpaid seller's reclamation rights.
• Santana Equestrian Private Fin., LLC v. Richtmyer
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-09-14
• Santana Equestrian Private Fin., LLC v. Richtmyer
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-09-14
  Santana Equestrian purchased a competitive jumping horse from a merchant in the sport horse business and sought to retain possession against the original owner's replevin claim. The court held that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code section 672.403, a good faith buyer in the
• Andreu v. HP Inc.
  2 La. 514· S.D. Fla.· 2017-09-26
• Rudiger Charolais Ranches v. Ranches
  994 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-27
  A merchant buyer's adherence to industry custom does not constitute good faith under the UCC if that custom conflicts with a controlling statute.
• Jablonski v. Buckeye Dev. Corp. & Guardian Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  597 So. 2d 905· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-22
  The Jablonskis, as grantors of real property, appeal a judgment requiring them to pay defense fees and costs incurred by their grantee Buckeye in defending against a title attack, despite Buckeye's successful defense. The court affirms, holding that a breach of the title warranty
• Kimberly & European Diamonds, Inc. v. Burbank
  684 F.2d 363· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-29
  The court held that the Uniform Commercial Code provision allowing a person with voidable title to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser was inapplicable, and thus the defendant, who was not a bona fide purchaser, could not acquire title to the converted diamond.
• Groves v. Cumberland Cap. Corp. & Richard Dance
  522 F.2d 446· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-31
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value based on Tennessee law.
• Richter's Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Frank's Fine Jewelry, Inc.
  188 So. 2d 37· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-06-21
  Richter's Jewelry appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Frank's Fine Jewelry in a replevin action to recover a diamond ring. The court reversed, holding that the original seller transferred a voidable title to the fraudulent buyer by delivering the ring without restriction,