ETHIOPIAN ZION COPTIC CHURCH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC., 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.
A church cannot use replevin to recover marijuana plants seized by police because contraband cannot be the subject of a replevin action.
Replevin cannot be used to recover contraband, as the plaintiff must demonstrate a possessory right and wrongful detention, which cannot exist for illegal property.
[1] Replevin cannot be maintained to recover property that constitutes contraband under state law, as the plaintiff cannot establish the wrongful detention required by statut…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 contraband is lawfully in the possession of the police authorities and held by them as evidence in a criminal prosecution, and clearly not subject to replevin at the suit of appellant”
Court's conclusion regarding why replevin cannot apply to seized marijuana
The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church sought return of marijuana plants that had been legally seized from its premises by police.…
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 Possessory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDEY, Judge.
This consolidated appeal stems from the dismissal of appellant’s complaints in replevin which sought the return of marijuana plants which had been legally seized from appellant’s premises. Upon consideration of all arguments advanced, we have determined that the trial court was correct in its dismissal of the complaints on the basis that the subject matter of the replevy actions is contraband under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1976), and, as such, appel lant cannot justifiably claim that the property is being wrongfully detained by the appellees/defendants (as is necessarily required under Section 78.055, Florida Statutes (1976) in order to obtain an order authorizing recovery of the property).
Since replevin is a possessory statutory action at law in which the main issue is the right to immediate possession and the gist of the action is the wrongful detention of the property, we affirm the order of the trial court because appellant has totally failed to demonstrate a possessory right and/or wrongful detention. See Delco Light Co. v. John Le Roy Hutchinson Properties, 99 Fla. 410, 128 So. 831 (1930); Wickham v. Famco Services, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Fischer v. Bernard’s Surf, 217 So. 2d 576 (Fla.4th DCA 1969).
It is our conclusion, therefore, that there has been no error demonstrated and the trial court properly dismissed the complaints for failure to state a cause of action; the contraband is lawfully in the possession of the police authorities and held by them as evidence in a criminal prosecution, and clearly not subject to replevin at the suit of appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson L. Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., Inc., 452 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ff argues that contraband articles cannot be justifiably replevied because, by definition, such articles cannot be “wrongfully detained,” as is required by section 78.055, Florida Statutes (1983). Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Universal, on the other hand, points to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in support of its argument that the sheriff cannot seize its property and keep it without hearing until…
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…rts of the replevin scheme, which require the court to first determine to a reasonable probability who has a lawful right to possession of the property. Fla.Stat. § 78.055(2); see also Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1979) (dismissing replevin claim brought to recover marijuana plants seized from church because the plants were contraband and the church had no right to possess them, and adding that “the main issue [in a replevin action]…
-
Babieca Cap., LP v. Cohen Anytime, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…and the gist of the action is the wrongful detention of the property[.]" Wright v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-263-Orl-22KRS, 2018 WL 2095171, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2018) (quoting Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)). Florida Statute section 78.055 sets forth the requirements of a replevin claim, which include “[a] description of the claimed property that is sufficient to make possible its identification and a statement, to the best know…
Authorities Cited
- Delco Light Co. v. John LeRoy Hutchinson Props., 99 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1930)
- Fischer v. Bernard's Surf, 217 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Wickham v. Famco Servs., Inc., 350 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)