RAFAEL HORTA AND JUAN HORTA, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, 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.
The court reversed a judgment on the pleadings entered against debtors in a deficiency judgment action brought by a credit union, holding that the debtors' pro se response alleging lack of notice of the public auction sale raised a sufficient legal defense that precluded summary judgment.
Yes. The court held that if proved, the defendants' allegation of lack of notice of the public auction would constitute a complete defense to the credit union's deficiency judgment action under Florida Statute Section 679.504(3), which requires reasonable notification of the time and place of public sales to the debtor. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings was improper.
[1] A pro se response alleging lack of notice of a vehicle repossession sale may constitute a complete defense to a deficiency judgment action.
[2] Failure to provide reasonable notification of the time and place of a public sale of repossessed collateral, unless the collateral is perishable or on a recognized market…
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“the defendants' pro se response to the complaint, filed well before judgment was entered, alleging that the defendants were not notified by the plaintiff credit union of the time and place of the sale at public auction of their repossessed vehicle, might, if proved, be a complete defense to the plaintiff's suit”
Establishes that the defendants' allegation of lack of notice constitutes a potential complete defense to the deficiency judgment action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlanigan's Enterprises Employees Credit Union repossessed a vehicle from Rafael and Juan Horta and sold it at public auction to recover a debt. The cr…
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 Action For Deficiency Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the judgment on the pleadings under review. The defendants’ pro se response to the complaint, filed well before judgment was entered, alleging that the defendants were not notified by the plaintiff credit union of the time and place of the sale at public auction of their repossessed vehicle, might, if proved, be a complete defense to the plaintiff’s suit to recover judgment for the deficiency between the amount due under the note and the amount received through the sale of the collateral. See § 679.504(3), Fla.Stat. (1981) 1; Hayes v. Ring Power Corp., 431 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Turk v. St. Petersburg Bank and Trust Co., 281 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). But cf. Weiner v. American Petrofina Marketing, Inc., 482 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.1986) (failure to dispose of collateral in a commercially reasonable manner as required by Section 679.504(3), Florida Statutes, does not preclude secured party from obtaining a deficiency judgment; however, burden shifts to secured party to overcome “presumption that the fair market value of the collateral at the time of repossession was equal to the amount of the total debt that it secured.” Id. at 1365). Where an answer pleads a sufficient legal defense, it is error to enter a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff. Lawyers Surety Corp. v. Clarke, 413 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. In pertinent part, this subsection of the statute reads:
“Unless collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market, reasonable notification of the time and place of any public sale ... shall be sent by the secured party to the debtor_” An automobile auction is not considered a recognized market which would exempt the creditor from the notice requirement. Hayes v. Ring Power Corp. 431 So. 2d 226; Turk v. St. Petersburg Bank and Trust Co., 281 So. 2d 534.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Weiner v. Am. Petrofina Mktg., Inc., 482 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1986)
- Turk v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co., 281 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Diamond v. State, 431 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Lawyers Sur. Corp. v. Clarke, 413 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)