GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND T. O'KEEFE, AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE REALTY AND TRUST, A MASSACHUSETTS BUSINESS TRUST, AND S. M. D., A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., APPELLEES (TWO CASES)
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.
General Electric Company sought to recover possession of appliances via replevin actions, but the trial court issued injunctions without notice prohibiting removal of the personal property from mortgaged premises pending foreclosure proceedings. The appellate court reversed, holding that GE is entitled to proceed with its replevin remedy to determine possession of the appliances based on its security agreement.
The trial court's injunctions, as applied to GE, were reversed. GE is entitled to proceed with its replevin actions to obtain immediate possession of the personal property, and the mortgagee must pursue its remedy through the replevin suit or post an undertaking equal to the property's value if it wishes to retain possession pending resolution.
[1] A party seeking to recover possession of personal property through a replevin action is entitled to proceed with that statutory remedy, even if another party claims a pri…
[2] A party seeking to retain possession of personal property that is the subject of a replevin action must file a written undertaking in an amount equal to the value of the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We see no reason why appellant is not entitled to proceed with its statutory remedy to obtain immediate possession of said personal property.”
Establishes that GE has a right to pursue its replevin remedy despite the mortgagee's competing claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO'Keefe, as Trustee, filed two mortgage foreclosure suits against a partnership and others for a tract of land with an apartment complex. GE filed rep…
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 Mortgage Lien Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellee Raymond T. O’Keefe, as Trustee, filed two suits against a general partnership known as S.M.D., and others, to foreclose two mortgages encumbering a tract of land and improvements involved in an apartment complex. Shortly thereafter appellant, General Electric Company, filed two replevin suits to recover possession of several hundred free-standing appliances (refrigerators, ranges and dishwashers) which were located on the premises subject to the above described mortgages. After intervening in the replevin suits appellee obtained from the trial court in each mortgage foreclosure action an injunction without notice prohibiting the removal of any personal property from the mortgaged premises pending a final determination of the foreclosure proceedings.
Appellant has numerous complaints about the entry of the foregoing injunctions. However, we deem it unnecessary to treat all of them since in our opinion appellant should be allowed to proceed with the re-plevin actions.
Appellant alleges m the replevin suits that it is entitled to possession of the personal property in question as a result of a security agreement in said personalty duly filed with the Secretary of State. Apparently it is appellee’s position that its mortgage constitutes a prior lien on the property in question. Instead of proceeding in the replevin suits to determine who is entitled to possession of the personal property in question, appellee obtained an order restraining appellant and all others from removing said property pending the outcome of the mortgage foreclosure suits, and posted therein two injunction bonds in the amount of $7500.00, thus effectively staying the replevin proceedings which involved property worth approximately $72,000.00.
We see no reason why appellant is not entitled to proceed with its statutory remedy to obtain immediate possession of said personal property. If appellee prefers to retain possession of said property pending the outcome of the replevin suits, he has the option to do so by filing a written undertaking in an amount equal to the value of the property, as provided in § 7S.067, F.S.1973. In any event, the issue as to which of these parties is entitled to possession of the personal property in question can be fully adjudicated in that suit.
Accordingly, the orders under review, as they apply to appellant, are reversed and the causes are remanded with directions to amend said orders to eliminate appellant from their application so that appellant and appellee Raymond T. O’Keefe, as Trustee, will be free to proceed to decide the issues involved in the replevin suits.
Reversed.
OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emp. Benefit Plans, Inc. v. Radice Corporate Ctr. I, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…contract, and foreclosure, have been held to constitute adequate remedies at law precluding resort to injunctive relief. People’s Telephone Company v. Sunshine Payphones, Inc., 519 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); General Electric Company v. O’Keefe, 309 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We would conclude by pointing out that no adequate showing was made of irreparable harm, as envisioned by the cases, in order to resort to equity for relief. And finally, there appears to be a genuine issue as to Radice’s entit…