IN RE FORFEITURE OF ONE 1946 LOCKHEED L-18 LOADSTAR, RIGHT 1820-A105A ENGINES, VISIBLE ID # N43WT. JOHN S. MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ZEPHYRHILLS, 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 held that an unrecorded bill of sale for an aircraft does not establish ownership for the purpose of protecting the aircraft from forfeiture under Florida law.
The City of Zephyrhills sued to forfeit an aircraft allegedly used in drug activities. The appellant claimed ownership via a bill of sale, asserting h…
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 Forfeiture Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Appellee, City of Zephyrhills, filed suit to forfeit one 1946 Lockheed L-18 Loadstar, Right 1820-A105A engines, visible ID #N43WT, which allegedly was used in drug activities. After hearing testimony of the record title owner of the aircraft, appellant, and law enforcement officers involved in investigations concerning the drug activities in which the aircraft was allegedly used, the trial court ordered the aircraft forfeited.
Appellant, John S. Matthews, alleges that ownership of the aircraft was transferred to him by a bill of sale several months prior to the forfeiture action. He contends that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and the record title holder of the aircraft and that the aircraft is not subject to forfeiture under chapter 932, Florida Statutes (1985), since he had no knowledge of the criminal activities in which the aircraft was allegedly used.
We do not agree that appellant is the record title holder of the aircraft. Florida Statutes provide that no instrument which affects the title to an aircraft is valid until such instrument is recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator. § 329.01, Fla.Stat. (1985). Since the bill of sale had not been recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator of the United States and record title was still in the original owner, appellant is not the owner of the aircraft within the meaning of the forfeiture statute and his interest is not subject to the protection of section 932.-703(2), Florida Statutes (1985).
Affirmed.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Byrom v. Walt Gallagher, 609 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1992)…d that Bryom did not have standing to contest the forfeiture. On rehearing, the district court upheld its previous ruling relying on Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, Inc., 513 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1987), and In re Forfeiture of One 19⅛6 Lockheed L-18 Loadstar, 493 So. 2d 10 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). The district court, however, noted that in Lamar and Lockheed the facts were unclear whether the appellants had obtained record title before the forfeiture hearing. The district court certified the question to this Court. Forfeit…
-
Lawson L. Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, Inc., 513 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1987)…GRIMES, Justice. We review the decision in Wheels Unlimited, Inc. v. Lamar, 492 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), because of its conflict with In re Forfeiture of One 1946 Lockheed L-18 Loadstar, 493 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Pursuant to sections 932.701-932.704, Florida Statutes (1985), the Sheriff of Orange County sued to forfeit an automobile which had been seized as allegedly being used as an instrumentality in the…
-
Cochran v. Jones, 707 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ents to show ownership. Thus, a party would have to show only that he or she is a bona fide purchaser where the seized property is not subject to the state’s title laws. 609 So. 2d at 26 n. 3; see In re Forfeiture of One 1946 Lockheed L-18 Loadstar, 493 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (Claimant was not owner of aircraft subject to forfeiture within the meaning of forfeiture statute and his interest was not subject to the protection of the statute, where although he contended he was a bona fide purchaser for val…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence