CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL MOBILE HOME BROKERS, 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.
This case involves a dispute over the trial judge's findings of fact regarding whether a property was shown to potential buyers, with the dissenting judge arguing that the majority mischaracterized the trial court's oral statements.
The dissenting judge believes the final judgment should be affirmed, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of the trial judge's factual findings and their implications.
The dissenting judge argues that the trial court did not fully accept the brokers' version of events, despite making a finding in favor of the plainti…
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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Pompano Beach appeals from a final order granting replevin and ordering the return of appellee’s property. Appellant’s police department seized the property pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, sections 932.701-932.704, Florida Statutes. The Pompano Beach police made a routine stop of appellee’s boat because no name or Florida registration numbers were displayed on it, as required by section 328.07(4), Florida Statutes. The police discovered contraband on board and seized the boat.
Appellee with knowledge of the pending forfeiture proceeding filed a separate re-plevin action seeking return of its property. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the replevin action based on section 932.703(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court denied appellant’s motion.
We reverse on the authority of Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1985). Section 932.703(1), Florida Statutes (1983), precludes the maintenance of a re-plevin action during the pendency of a forfeiture action.1 We remand this cause for entry of an order dismissing the replevin action.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. . Effective October 1, 1985, section 932.703(1) was amended to allow a replevin action if forfeiture proceedings are not initiated within ninety days after the date of seizure. The amendment is not controlling because this seizure was on July 6, 1985.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Barclay, 563 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…such action may be maintained if forfeiture proceedings are not initiated within 90 days after the date of seizure.” See Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1985); see also City of Pompano Beach v. General Mobile Home Brokers, Inc., 493 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The state contends and the officers’ arrest report substantiates that the officers in the instant case had probable cause to stop and arrest the defendant and seize the jeep. See Gillum v. One 1978 Kenworth Semi-Truck Tractor,…
-
City OF Coral Gables v. Rodriguez, 568 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ceeding.” City of Miami v. Barclay, 563 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); McLane v. Youngblood, 544 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1985); City of Pompano Beach v. General Mobile Home Brokers, 493 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Consequently, Rodriguez’s motion and the court’s disposition of the motion were premature. Barclay. We therefore reverse the order returning the property to Rodriguez. Reversed.…
-
City OF Ormond Beach v. Kosmalski, 588 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ely filed by the City of Coral Gables and was pending at the time the criminal court ordered the vehicle’s return. See also Coral Gables v. Rodriguez, 568 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In City of Pompano Beach v. General Mobile Home Brokers, Inc., 493 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), an order granting replevin of the defendant’s boat was reversed because “[sjection 932.703(1), Florida Statutes (1983), precludes maintenance of a replevin action during the forfeiture action.” Admittedly, the City of Ormon…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lawson L. Lamar v. Universal Supply Co., Inc., 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1985)