SHELDON LAKE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL J. IRRGANG, JR., HOWARD W. LEE, JOHN P. ELLERMAN, FRED M. TEMPLE AND CONSOLIDATED EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Sheldon Lake purchased a boat at a mechanics' lien sale and later sold it down a chain of title. When the original owner recovered the boat in replevin, the final purchaser sued for breach of warranty of title. The court reversed the judgment against Lake, holding that he was not bound by the prior replevin judgment to which he was not a party and that the mechanics' lien sale was valid.
The court held that Lake had valid title to sell the boat because the mechanics' lien sale was valid under Florida law and Lake was not bound by the prior replevin judgment to which he was not a party. There was no competent evidence to support a finding that the sale was defective.
[1] A prior judgment in replevin does not bind a party who was not a party to that action.
[2] A party is not bound by a prior judgment if the procedure for "vouching in" under Section 672.607(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was not followed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Lake was not a party to that action and, therefore, is not bound by that judgment or any implication arising therefrom.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that Lake cannot be bound by the replevin judgment to which he was not a party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1975, Thomas J. Smith orally agreed with Fred Temple of Consolidated Export and Manufacturing Corporation to store and maintain his boat fo…
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 Breach Of Warranty Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
SIMONS, STUART M., Associate Judge.
Appellant Sheldon Lake timely appeals a finding that he lacked sufficient title to sell a boat which he had bought through a supposedly invalid mechanics’ lien sale under Section 85.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975).
In January of 1975, Thomas J. Smith, the original owner of the boat, entered into an oral agreement with Fred Temple, Vice President of Consolidated Export and Manufacturing Corporation, for the storage and maintenance of the boat in exchange for a monthly fee. When Temple could not reach or communicate with Smith for several months, Temple prepared to sell the boat at public auction pursuant to Section 85.031(2), Florida Statutes (1975), in order to cover expenses incurred in conjunction with the boat.
The sale was conducted by Temple’s attorney and the boat went to the highest bidder, Sheldon Lake. After repairing and making improvements on the boat, Lake sold it to John Ellerman. Ellerman than sold the boat to Howard Lee, who, in turn, sold it to Paul Irrgang.
In March of 1976, Smith reappeared and filed a replevin action against Irrgang for possession of the boat. A final judgment was rendered in favor of Smith who recovered possession of the boat. No other persons in the chain of title were parties to that suit.
Following the final judgment in the re-plevin action, Irrgang filed suit against Howard Lee for breach of warranty of title. Lee answered acknowledging the sale but denied knowledge concerning the replevin action. He then filed a third party complaint against John Ellerman for breach of warranty of title. Ellerman answered admitting that he warranted title when he sold the boat to Lee.
Irrgang filed a motion for summary judgment along with a supporting affidavit against Lee. As third party plaintiff, Lee filed a motion for summary judgment against John Ellerman. Prior to the trial court hearing on the summary judgment motions, Ellerman filed a third party complaint against Lake for breach of warranty of title. At a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, the court deferred ruling thereon and granted Ellerman’s ore ten-us motion to add Lake as a third party defendant. Lake thereafter filed a third party complaint seeking indemnification against Fred Temple and Consolidated Export and Manufacturing Corporation for breach of warranty of title.
Although the hearing on the motions for summary judgment was noticed on September 30, 1977, and scheduled for December 20, 1977, Lake and his attorneys were not notified of the hearing and did not appear. The court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of Irrgang against Lee, and denied Lee’s motion for summary judgment against Ellerman. At a final hearing which was subsequently held on the remaining third party complaints, the trial court issued its findings and entered a final judgment for Ellerman and against Lake.
Reviewing the evidence adduced at the actual trial which resulted in the judgment on appeal, it is clear that Consolidated Export had a valid mechanics lien and followed the enforcement provisions of Chapter 85, Florida Statutes (1975). There was no competent evidence presented tending to prove the sale was defective. Rather, the trial court apparently relied upon the prior judgment in replevin in reaching its conclusion. This is erroneous in view of the fact that Lake was not a party to that action and, therefore, is not bound by that judgment or any implication arising therefrom. Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corp., 102 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1958). The only other matter argued to support the judgment is that Lake had been “vouched in” under Section 672.607(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) and, thus, was bound by the prior determination. This is not the case since the procedure outlined in that section was not followed.
There being no competent evidence to support the judgment, we reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of Lake.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd v. Panama City Boat Yard, Inc., 522 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ve practical effect to the statute, it should be read to confer at least some protection to the lienor and a party purchasing from him. For example, in a properly conducted sale under the statute, the purchaser takes good title. Cf. Lake v. Irrgang, 391 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Richwagen v. Lilienthal, 386 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Additionally, the lienor/seller would certainly be protected from criminal prosecution for his statutorily-authorized actions. We believe, however, that the trial cou…
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton C. Forman and Charles R. Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1958)