MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BENJAMIN ISRAEL ET AL., 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.
Modine Manufacturing, a seller of goods, replevied merchandise from buyers Israel and others before the agreed payment period expired. The trial court found the buyers had the right to possession and awarded them the full value of the goods. The appellate court affirmed the possession finding but reversed the damages award, holding that defendants could only recover the value of their special equity interest, not the full value of unpaid goods.
The court affirmed that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that defendants were entitled to possession at the time of the replevin action. However, the court reversed the damages awards, holding that because defendants had a special interest in the goods (as buyers who had not yet paid), they could only recover judgment for the value of their special equity interest, not the full value of the property.
[1] An appellate court will not reverse a finding of fact if it is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence.
[2] A seller of goods sold on credit may not recover possession of the goods through replevin if the agreed payment period has not yet expired and there is no evidence of def…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This court will not reverse a finding of the trier of fact if the finding is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings; supports affirmance of the possession determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceModine Manufacturing sold goods to the defendants on credit with an agreed payment period that had not yet expired. A long-established course of deali…
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
PEARSON, Judge.
This appeal is from judgments for the defendants after a trial before the court without jury in an action for replevin. The plaintiff-appellant urges: (1) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding that the appellees had the right of possession, and (2) that the money judgments were erroneous in that the amount assessed as the value of the property is not supported by the record. We affirm upon the first point and reverse upon the second.
The plaintiff-appellant was the seller of the goods sought to be replevied. There was evidence before the court upon which the court determined that the goods were sold upon credit and that the agreed period for payment had not expired. In addition, there was evidence of a long established course of dealings between the parties in which a period for payment was allowed. There is no doubt that appellant had a security interest in the goods; nevertheless, the evidence supports a finding by the trial court that appellees were entitled to possession at the time the suit was instituted. The court determined from the evidence that the appellant simply became worried about the deal and attempted to regain possession of the goods before payment was due. This court will not reverse a finding of the trier of fact if the finding is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence. See Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Frank T. Budge Co., 107 Fla. 581, 145 So. 192 (1933).
The award of $39,805.65 to ABC and $6,773.41 to Blizzard, which represents the value of the goods at the time that they were replevied, cannot be sustained since neither appellee has ever paid for the goods. The record shows that each of the defendants has elected to take the money judgment.
Fla.Stat. § 78.21, F.S.A. provides that when property replevied has not been redelivered to the defendant, and he ultimately prevails, judgment shall be entered in his favor for possession and for,
“ . . . the value of the property and costs in the same manner as provided in § 78.19 for judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
Fla.Stat. § 78.19 provides that where goods are redelivered to the defendant, and the plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to a judgment for possession and for the value of the property. However, the granting of a judgment for the value of the property is qualified by the statutory requirement that where,
“. . . plaintiff’s interest in the property is based on a claim of lien or some special interest therein, the judgment shall be only for the amount of the lien or the value of such special interest . . . ”. Fla.Stat. § 78.19(1) [Emphasis supplied]
Consequently, since Fla.Stat. § 78.-21 provides that the determination of the judgment for value in favor of the defendant shall be made in the same manner as for the plaintiff, the defendant’s award is also thereby qualified by the requirement in Fla.Stat. § 78.19(1) that it be only for the amount of his special interest in the goods. See State ex rel. O’Hara v. Justice, Fla.1959, 109 So. 2d 761. See also Lazzari v. Gordon, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 102.
The judgment appealed is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded for a trial to determine the value of the defendants’ special equity in the goods replevied.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Modine Mfg. Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…e re-plevied goods. Modine’s post-judgment petition for rehearing or, alternatively, motion for new trial was denied. On August 6,1973, Modine appealed to this court. This resulted in a partial affirmance, see Modine Manufacturing Company v. Israel, 294 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), in which this court said, in part: “This appeal is from judgments for the defendants after a trial before the court without jury in an action for replevin. The plaintiff-appellant urges: (1) that the evidence was not sufficient…
-
Lease Fin. Corp. v. Nat'l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…e value of the collateral is relevant at the final judgment stage of the proceedings. See J.E. Joyner, Inc. v. Ettlinger, 382 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), appeal after remand, 421 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Modine Manufacturing Co. v. Israel, 294 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 303 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1974). See also Lazzari v. Gordon, 214 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This case, however, is at the prejudgment stage.3 An order upholding or dissolving a prejudgment writ of replev-in following a hea…
-
Demetree v. Stramondo, 621 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ty or to satisfy a judgment against the plaintiff and its surety for the value of the property and costs. See §§ 78.19, 78.20, 78.21, Fla.Stat. See e.g., State ex rel. O’Hara v. Justice, 109 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1959); Modine Manufacturing Co. v. Israel, 294 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 303 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1974); Cecil Holland Ford, Inc. v. Jameson, 132 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). We remand for entry of a corrected judgment. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. DAUKSCH and PETERSON,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. William O'Hara v. Justice, 109 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1959)
- Miami Bank & Tr. Co. v. Frank T. Budge Co., 107 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1933)
- Celestlne A. Lazzari v. Gordon, 214 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)