PEOPLE'S TELEPHONE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
SUNSHINE PAYPHONES, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1988-02-03
No. 87-2051
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
519 So. 2d 690 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1988) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

People's Telephone Company appealed an order granting a temporary injunction requiring return of four telephones and twenty-eight keys to Sunshine Payphones without posting the bond required by Florida's replevin statute. The court reversed the injunction as to the telephones but affirmed it as to the keys, holding that an adequate remedy at law existed through replevin and that the injunction improperly bypassed statutory bonding requirements.


Holding

The court reversed the injunction as to the four telephones because appellee had an adequate remedy at law through replevin, which required posting a bond of twice the property value under section 78.068. The court affirmed the injunction as to the keys because their return protected appellee's access to future payphone receipts and was not merely replevin of personal property.


Headnotes

[1] A temporary injunction compelling the return of personal property is improper when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law through replevin.

[2] A prejudgment writ of replevin requires the posting of a bond in an amount specified by statute, typically twice the value of the goods.

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

Key Quotes

“The record supports appellant's argument that appellee has an adequate remedy at law, both in damages and by way of replevin for return of the telephones. Replevin is an action at law.”

Establishes that replevin provides an adequate legal remedy, making injunctive relief unnecessary

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

People's Telephone Company agreed to install and service thirty-eight private telephones purchased by Sunshine Payphones. After appellant delivered th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, People’s Telephone Company, seeks reversal of an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that ordered appellant to deliver four telephones and twenty-eight telephone box keys to appellee, Sunshine Payphones, Inc., without requiring a sufficient bond to satisfy the requirements of the replevin statute, section 78.01, et seq., Florida Statutes (1985).

Appellant and appellee entered into an agreement whereby appellant agreed to install and service thirty-eight private telephones that would be purchased by appel-lee and delivered to appellant for installation. Appellee delivered the telephones to appellant and appellant began installing and servicing them. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the performance of the contract. On June 16, 1987, appellee filed a complaint seeking damages for breach of contract and for fraud. The complaint also contained counts seeking rescission, replevin and for an accounting. On June 17, 1987, appellee filed a sworn emergency motion for a temporary injunction to compel appellant to return the four telephones and twenty-eight telephone box keys. The trial court granted appellee’s motion on that same day. On June 19, 1987, appellant moved to vacate the injunction and after a hearing the trial court denied appellant’s motion. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering the injunctions because appellee failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. Appellant also contends that the order granting the injunction amounts to an order of replevin without the requisite replevin bond as required by section 78.-068(3), Florida Statutes (1985).

The record supports appellant’s argument that appellee has an adequate remedy at law, both in damages and by way of replevin for return of the telephones. Re-plevin is an action at law. See Delacruz v. Peninsula State Bank, 221 So. 2d 772 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). Section 78.068, Florida Statutes (1985) provides for a prejudgment writ of replevin upon the posting of a bond in the amount of twice the value of the goods. Here the trial court ordered appellant to return the possession of the telephones and keys to appellee upon appellee posting a bond of $1,000, when it appeared undisputed in the record that the telephones had a value of at least $1,400 each.

We do not agree that the trial court erred when it issued an injunction requiring the return of the keys. The return of the keys was not merely a return of personal property. It allowed appellee exclusive access to future, as yet unearned, receipts from the payphones because of allegations that appellant was altering the devices which recorded the receipt of the telephones and was improperly pocketing an undeterminable portion of those receipts.

Accordingly, we reverse the injunction as to the four telephones, without prejudice for appellee to move for replevin in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 78, Florida Statutes (1985).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Emp. Benefit Plans, Inc. v. Radice Corporate Ctr. I, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
    …So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The foregoing remedies, i.e., breach of contract, and foreclosure, have been held to constitute adequate remedies at law precluding resort to injunctive relief. People’s Telephone Company v. Sunshine Payphones, Inc., 519 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); General Electric Company v. O’Keefe, 309 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We would conclude by pointing out that no adequate showing was made of irreparable harm, as envisioned by the cases, in order to resort to equity for reli…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw