FRANK GELFO, D/B/A PAPPY'S CAR SALES, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, A 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.
Frank Gelfo purchased a 1965 Chevrolet from John Schmidt without checking for liens, as required by Florida statute. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, which held a conditional sales contract on the vehicle, sued for the balance owed. The court affirmed summary judgment against Gelfo, holding that a prospective purchaser must comply with statutory requirements before completing a sale to qualify as an innocent purchaser for value.
A prospective purchaser must comply with the statutory requirements of § 319.27(3)(f), Fla.Stat. (1963) prior to the consummation of the sale to be deemed an innocent purchaser for value. Failure to do so leaves the purchaser subject to all outstanding conditional sales contracts or prior liens.
“it is incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to do those things required in the statute prior to the consummation of the sale of the chattel involved, if he desires to be deemed an innocent purchaser for value”
Establishes the core holding that statutory compliance is mandatory and must occur before the sale is finalized
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 10, 1965, John Schmidt entered into a conditional sales agreement for a 1965 Chevrolet with H. M. Wilson Co., Inc., which was assigned to GMAC…
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 Retain Title Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment. The appellee filed a complaint seeking to recover damages for the balance due under a conditional sales contract.
The record on appeal reveals the following: On June 10, 1965, one John Schmidt entered into a conditional sales agreement with H. M. Wilson Co., Inc., in reference to a certain 1965 Chevrolet automobile. Thereafter, the conditional sales agreement was assigned to the appellee, General Motors Acceptance Corporation. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of New York, a financial statement, reflecting the outstanding secured interest, was duly filed on June 16, 1965 with the appropriate “recording officer” in that State which, in the instant case, was the City Register of Queens County, New York. Thereafter, Schmidt proceeded to Florida and sold the car to the appellant, at which time it became the duty of the appellant to do certain things in order to be considered an innocent purchaser for value pursuant to § 319.27(3) (f), Fla.Stat. (1963),1 F.S.A.
It is undisputed in this record that at no time prior to the consummation of the sale from Schmidt to the appellant did the latter attempt to comply with § 319.27(3) (f), Fla.Stat. (1963), F.S.A., by checking with the proper authority in the State of New York or by securing a “telegram or statement in writing” showing there were no liens registered against the vehicle to be sold by Schmidt. Subsequent to the purchase of the automobile by the appellant it was titled in Florida and sold to an innocent third party. Thereafter, representatives of the appellee contacted the appellant at which time, some five months after the transaction with Schmidt, the appellant at*249tempted to elicit certain information from the Secretary of State, State of New York [not the appropriate recording officer),2 in reference to any outstanding liens against the vehicle.
Basically, the facts were undisputed and we find no error in the summary judgment here under review. We hold that under § 319.27(3) (f), Fla.Stat. (1963), F.S.A., it is incumbent upon a prospective purchaser to do those things required in the statute prior to the consummation of the sale of the chattel involved,3 if he desires to be deemed an innocent purchaser for value. Failure to do so in the instant case left the appellant in the same position as an ordinary purchaser of chattels covered by an outstanding retain title contract, to wit: subject to all outstanding conditional sales contracts or prior liens. Campbell Printing Press and Manufacturing Company v. Walker, 22 Fla. 412, 1 So. 59; Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284, 18 So. 597; Maas Brothers, Inc. v. Guaranty Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 195; 6 Fla.Jur., Conditional Sales, Chattel Mortgages and Trust Receipts, § 100.
Therefore, the judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Northside Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 255 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…agees who had failed to make the requisite inquiry concerning the liens in the foreign state. Appellee’s reliance upon Brinkley v. Freedom National Bank of New York, 210 So. 2d 465 (Fla.App.1968), and Gelfo v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 206 So. 2d 247 (Fla.App.1968), is of no avail since the facts giving rise to those cases occurred prior to the effective date of the repeal of Section 319.27(3)(f), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is reversed. WIGGINTON and CAR…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitfield Walker, 22 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1886)
- Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1895)
- Mun. Auto Sales, Inc. v. Ferry St. Motor Sales, Inc., 143 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1962)
- Maas Bros., Inc. v. Guar. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 180 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)