BARB'S SPRINKLERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ARIE TAYKAN AND BARBARA TAYKEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WATER BOY LAWN SPRINKLER'S, INC., AND JACK KLEIN, 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.
The court held that a secured party who repossesses collateral and fails to sell it effectively retains it in satisfaction of the debt, barring a deficiency judgment.
Plaintiff sued on a promissory note after repossessing business assets that served as collateral. The uncontradicted testimony indicated the value of …
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 Repossession Of Collateral cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a verdict for the plaintiff, Water Boy Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., in a suit on a promissory note. We reverse.
The verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and to law because plaintiff, by repossessing the business assets which served as collateral for the loan and subsequently failing to sell them so that the proceeds could be applied to the debt, effectively elected to retain them in satisfaction of the debt. See §§ 679.503-.504, .505(2), Fla.Stat. (1989); see also Allen v. Coates, 661 So. 2d 879, 884-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (discussing the effect of the failure to give notice of election to retain assets on the secured parties’ ability to obtain a deficiency judgment). Because the uncontradicted testimony at trial was that the value of the repossessed business assets was greater than the amount due and owing under the note, the lender was entitled to nothing more. We also reject plaintiffs contentions that the verdict was proper because the business assets had already been repossessed by defendant’s landlord; there was no evidence in the record that a proper statutory distress action was filed pursuant to section 83.11, Florida Statutes (1989).
We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and find no error. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand with instructions that-the trial court enter judgment for the defendants, Barb’s Sprinklers, Inc..
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and BROWN, LUCY C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diaz v. Onelio Mendez and Nilda Menendez, 661 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)