SAM SEIFF AND SARAH SEIFF, APPELLANTS,
v.
PRESTO BRICK MACHINE CORP., A CORPORATION, COLUMBIA MACHINE, INC., A CORPORATION, AND QUALITY BLOCK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
Creditors sought to impress an equitable lien on a chattel purchased by a defendant at a Federal Tax distraint sale, claiming conversion. The trial court refused to award damages for conversion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that without a right of possession at the time of the distraint sale, conversion could not occur.
The court held that conversion could not have occurred because the plaintiffs had no right of possession at the time of the distraint sale. The court also noted it was doubtful whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an equitable lien on the chattel subsequent to the distraint sale.
“There was no right of possession in the plaintiffs at the time of the distraint sale. With no right of possession, there could have been no conversion.”
Establishes the core legal principle that conversion requires a right of possession, which was absent here.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants (Seiffs) filed a creditors' bill seeking to impress an equitable lien on a chattel purchased by Columbia Machine, Inc. at a Federal Tax dis…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, filed a creditors’ bill seeking to impress an equitable lien on a certain chattel purchased by the appellee, Columbia Machine, Inc., at a Federal Tax distraint sale, upon a theory of conversion by the purchaser at the sale. The chancellor refused to award damages for conversion, and the appellants have appealed urging error in this regard. 'Vy’e affirm.
There was no right of possession in the plaintiffs at the time of the distraint sale. With no right of possession, there could have been no conversion. See: Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14; Fletcher v. Dees, 101 Fla. 402, 134 So. 234; Allen v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 442. It is also doubtful whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an equitable lien on the chattel subsequent to the distraint sale, but this point was not preserved for review by a cross assignment €>f error.
*701The final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Pitts v. Ahlswede, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 159; City of Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 156 So.2d 528. It was incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate error. See: Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 183; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla. App.1963, 157 So.2d 541. If the record contains evidence to support the final decree rendered by the chancellor, it should be affirmed. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 477. Measuring this record on appeal in light of these principles, we find no error in the final decree here under review and same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…for conversion,' one must have possession of the property or an immediate right to possession.” Scherer v. Labors International Union, 746 F.Supp. 73, 84 (N.D.Fla.1988); see also Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53, 53 So. 14 (1910); Seiff v. Presto Brick, 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), certiorari denied, 174 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1965). Lennar fails to state a cause of action for conversion because Lennar has not alleged a present possessory right to the rents under the loan documents. [*500] Assuming, which vi)e do n…
-
Gosta Tollius v. Dutch Inns OF Am., Inc., 244 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
-
Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank & Gladys Schutz v. Shalleck, 182 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…unt rendered by the chancellor; and, finding such, we are required to sustain him. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 351; Rimer v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp., Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 549; Seiff v. Presto Brick Machine Corp., Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 700. Second, failing to dismiss the complaint when it was evident that the alleged [*651] contract in question was of an oral nature and, therefore, unenforceable as not.in compliance with the statute of frauds. The appellee responds to this that the c…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. Coppola, 129 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Davis v. Levin, 138 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Falcon Pitts and Mike McKinley v. Erichc Ahlswede and Adeline M. Ahlswede, 139 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Lamb v. Dade Cnty., 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- The City OF Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Inc., 156 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Groover v. Simonhoff, 157 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Fuller v. Mrs. M. A. Brown, 101 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1931)
- Dekle v. Calhoun, 60 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1910)
- Fletcher v. Dees, 101 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1931)
- Green v. Zukernick, 133 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)