Adams v. Barnett Bank of Polk County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. Barnett Bank of Polk County

469 So. 2d 250, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14226

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2133

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 469 So. 2d 250 (Adams v. Barnett Bank of Polk County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Barnett Bank of Polk County, 469 So. 2d 250, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14226 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the partial final summary judgment denying appellant, plaintiff below, the right to punitive damages in this suit for wrongful repossession by a creditor of collateral security, a logging machine. (All of the remaining portions of the lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed.)

Plaintiff claimed damages arising out of the loss in value of the security at its sale by the creditor due to alleged damage caused to the machine when it was repossessed and disassembled preparatory to being removed from the debtor’s premises for transportation to another location for sale. The disassembly was accomplished by a third party hired by the creditor. Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, there was no.evidence that the creditor in hiring that third party was guilty of some fault which fore-seeably contributed to plaintiff’s damages so as to make the creditor liable in punitive damages for wrongs done by that third party. See Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981).

Even if there had been evidence of the above referenced type, there was no evidence that the acts of the third party were of a nature, such as those described in White Construction Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984), to justify an award of punitive damages.

Affirmed.

OTT, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the partial final summary judgment denying appellant, plaintiff below, the right to punitive damages in this suit for wrongful repossession by a creditor of collateral security, a logging machine. (All of the remaining portions of the lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed.)

Plaintiff claimed damages arising out of the loss in value of the security at its sale by the creditor due to alleged damage caused to the machine when it was repossessed and disassembled preparatory to being removed from the debtor’s premises for transportation to another location for sale. The disassembly was accomplished by a third party hired by the creditor. Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, there was no.evidence that the creditor in hiring that third party was guilty of some fault which fore-seeably contributed to plaintiff’s damages so as to make the creditor liable in punitive damages for wrongs done by that third party. See Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981).

Even if there had been evidence of the above referenced type, there was no evidence that the acts of the third party were of a nature, such as those described in White Construction Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984), to justify an award of punitive damages.

Affirmed.

OTT, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 So. 2d 250, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-barnett-bank-of-polk-county-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack