EURO NUT AUTO REPAIR, LLC
v.
GARY WILLIAMS
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.
In a replevin action, the sole legal issue is the right of immediate possession, and title is secondary and unimportant where title and the right to immediate possession have been separated.
[1] In a replevin action, the sole legal issue is the right of immediate possession, and the question of title is secondary and unimportant where title and the right to immed…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Replevin is strictly a possessory action where the sole legal issue is the right of immediate possession, not ownership or title.”
Court's statement of the legal standard governing replevin actions
Euro Nut Auto Repair, LLC appealed a judgment from County Court for Indian River County in a replevin action against Gary Williams.…
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 Marketable Title cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
EURO NUT AUTO REPAIR, LLC, Appellant,
v.
GARY WILLIAMS, Appellee.
No. 4D2023-2538
[July 10, 2024]
Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Nicole
P.
Menz, Judge;
L.T.
Case No. 312023SC000753.
Ryan Scott DiGiovanni of Ryan Scott DiGiovanni, PLLC, Vero Beach, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Bunting v. Daly’s, Inc., 528 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (rejecting the argument that under section 319.22(1), Florida Statutes (1985), a plaintiff did not have standing or a cause of action for conversion because he did not hold a title certificate in his name, because that statute only affects the marketability of title); Williams Mgmt. Enters., Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160, 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“[R]eplevin is strictly a possessory action where the sole legal issue is the right of immediate possession, not ownership or title.”); Southside Atl. Bank v. Lewis, 174 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (“The only issue to be determined in a replevin action is the right of possession. The question of title is secondary and unimportant where title and the right to immediate possession have been separated.”).
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams Mgmt. Enters., Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Southside Atl. Bank v. Lewis, 174 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Bunting v. Daly's, Inc., 528 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)