DAVID F. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN K. STEINER AND AFFORDABLE AUTO LEASING, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Brown appeals an order granting a writ of replevin and setting a bond amount to stay it. The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the underlying claim had probable validity but reversed and remanded the bond reduction from $125,000 to $100,000 and required clarification of property values.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that there was probable validity of the underlying claim and no abuse of discretion in conducting the hearing. The bond was reduced from $125,000 to $100,000 based on the actual value of the property. The order was remanded to separately state the value for each of the two items rather than an aggregate valuation.
[1] A trial court may grant a writ of replevin under Florida Statutes § 78.067(2) upon a finding of probable validity of the underlying claim against the defendant, based on…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by declining to stay a hearing for a writ of replevin when there is conflicting evidence but substantial competent evidence su…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“make a determination of which party, with reasonable probability, is entitled to the possession of the claimed property pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties. This determination shall be based on a finding as to the probable validity of the underlying claim alleged against the defendant.”
Establishes the standard for determining entitlement to possession in a replevin action under Florida Statutes § 78.067(2).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was the defendant in a replevin action brought by Steiner and Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc. The trial court conducted a hearing to determine whi…
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 Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David F. Brown appeals an order granting a writ of replevin pursuant to subsection 78.067(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and an order setting the amount of the bond to stay the writ. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court conducted a hearing under the statute in order to “make a determination of which party, with reasonable probability, is entitled to the possession of the claimed property pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties. This determination shall be based on a finding as to the probable validity of the underlying claim alleged against the defendant.” Id. § 78.067(2). Although there was conflicting evidence before the court, there was substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court’s determination, at this preliminary stage, that there was probable validity of the underlying claim against the defendant. There was no abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case in the trial court’s declining to stay the hearing.
With regard to the bond, appellees Steven K. Steiner and Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc., concede that the amount of the bond must be reduced from $125,000 to $100,000. See id. § 78.067(2) (“However, the order shall be stayed pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties if the defendant files with the court a written undertaking executed by a surety approved by the court in an amount equal to the value of the property.”) See generally H. Trawick, Florida Practice & Procedure § 34-2, at 555 (1991). Appellees concede that they erroneously relied on subsection 78.068(4), Florida Statutes (1991). That section, which requires a higher bond, is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, the bond must be reduced to $100,000.
Brown argues that the trial court erred by finding the value of the property to be $100,000, and argues that the value should have been set at a much lower amount. While there was conflicting evidence on that point, there is substantial competent evidence in the record supporting the value found by the trial court.
Brown also argues that the order entered by the trial court should have set forth the value for each of the two items at issue here, rather than an aggregate valuation of $100,000. As appellees agree that the order should be amended to so state, we need discuss the point no further. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to reduce the bond and amend the order determining the value of the property.