REN-DEL ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RANDALL E. WARREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA KEYS FIRST STATE BANK, A BANKING 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 held that a creditor is entitled to a deficiency judgment if the collateral is disposed of in a commercially reasonable manner.
Appellants signed a promissory note and security agreement for a marine travelift. The creditor repossessed and sold the collateral, then sought a def…
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 Commercial Reasonableness Of Collateral Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
[*542] PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Ren-Del Enterprises, Inc., and Randall E. Warren, signed a promissory note and a security agreement in favor of appellee, Florida Keys First State Bank. The note was secured by a marine travelift, a specialized piece of boatyard equipment used to service shrimp boats. Ren-Del and Warren appeal the judgment awarding a deficiency to the bank after proceeds from a sale of the collateral were applied to the principal balance, plus interest and attorney’s fees.
Contrary to the appellants’ primary contention, there is some evidence in the record which supports the trial court’s finding that the creditor’s disposition of the unique collateral, after repossession, was commercially reasonable. See Williams v. Kloeppel, 537 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (the s'ecured creditor is entitled to a deficiency if he disposes of the collateral, by public or private sale, in a commercially reasonable manner); Land v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 466 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (same); Swindel v. General Fin. Corp. of Fla., 265 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (same); § 679.504, Fla.Stat. (1987). A finding of the trial court on disputed facts in a nonjury trial will not be disturbed by a reviewing court where the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Appellants argue, as a separate point, that a creditor who, after declaring a default and repossessing the collateral, delays more than three years before instituting an action for a deficiency judgment, is entitled to interest at the statutory rate for the three-year interval but not to interest at the higher rate fixed by the contract. In our view, the question need not be reached where there is a determination that the sale of the collateral, after repossession, was commercially reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Antun Invs. Corp. v. Ergas, 549 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…damages was not foreclosed where Ergas demonstrated that the nuisance was a cause of its damages. Because competent substantial evidence supports the lost profits award, affirmance is mandated. Ren-Del Enter., Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“A finding of the trial court on disputed facts in a nonju-ry trial will not be disturbed by a reviewing court where the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence.”). 3-PROSPECTIVE EXPENSES & 4-AN-TICIPATED HOL…
-
Roberts Roofing Co. v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…y trial will not be disturbed where they are supported by competent and substantial evidence even if that evidence is disputed. Antun Invests. Corp. v. Ergas, 549 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ren-Del Enters., Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Competent and substantial evidence was presented that the appellant breached the roof repair contract and, for that reason, was not entitled to a judgment of fore…
-
R.P.M. Enters., Inc. v. Bertram Murphy and Barbara Murphy, 575 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…mpetent evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding. That being so, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. See Farrell v. Farrell, 555 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ren-Del Enterprises, Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“A finding of the trial court on disputed facts in a non-jury trial will not be disturbed by a reviewing court where the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence.”). As R.P.M. had not complied with its obligati…
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
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Swindel v. Gen. Fin. Corp. OF Fla., 265 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Williams v. Kloeppel, 537 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Land v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 466 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)