KAM SEAFOOD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 the trial court erred in finding the employee to be the beneficial owner of the vehicle and ordering its forfeiture.
Kam Seafood appealed the forfeiture of a car titled in its name, which was used by an employee arrested for possession of cocaine. The trial court fou…
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 Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Kam Seafood appeals the forfeiture, as contraband, of an automobile operated by an employee who was arrested for possession of cocaine in Apalachicola. The trial judge found that the employee was the beneficial owner of the car and ordered a forfeiture. We disagree and reverse.
The evidence at the forfeiture hearing showed that the title to the car was in the name of Kam Seafood and had been since the car’s purchase in 1979. The employee, who was also the son of the company president, had permission to use the car. Other employees also had use of the car. The company paid maintenance and repair bills on the ear. All of the evidence demonstrated the automobile was an asset of the company at all times.
In ordering forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Section 932.701 et seq., Florida Statutes, (1981), the trial court concluded that the arrested employee, Kenneth Wilson, was the beneficial owner of the car and that the company held title as a matter of convenience. This conclusion can arise only as an inference from the employee’s predominant use of the vehicle. The inference is unreasonable under the evidence in this case. The evidence clearly shows appellant was the legal owner. The evidence fails to support any conclusion that the company held title to avoid forfeiture or as a convenience. The evidence shows a purely business reason for the company to hold title, to provide transportation for its employees on company business.
The trial judge concluded that Kam Seafood and its president neither knew or should have known of the use of the car to transport cocaine. Since the evidence demonstrates Kam Seafood was the owner, it was error to order the forfeiture. Therefore, the order of forfeiture is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court to enter an order returning the automobile to its owner, Kam Seafood.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant St. Grp., Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…t testimony offered by Realauction and the mere speculative testimony offered by Grant Street, it was unreasonable for the court or jury to “infer” that the negotiations were terminated because of the Realauction email. See Kam Seafood Co. v. State, 496 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing trial judge’s ruling which was based on an inference that was unreasonable because it contradicted clear direct evidence). Based on these facts, we find the trial court properly entered a directed verdict for the 2005…
-
Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Rosalia Gonzalez, 98 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…t testimony offered by Realauction and the mere speculative testimony offered by Grant Street, it was unreasonable for the court or jury to ‘infer’ that the negotiations were terminated because of the Realauction email. See Kam Seafood Co. v. State, 496 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing trial judge’s ruling which was based on an inference that was unreasonable because it contradicted clear direct evidence).”); Alan & Alan, Inc. v. Gulfstream Car Wash, Inc., 385 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) ("It…