Airnet, Inc. v. Phoenix Continental Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Airnet, Inc. v. Phoenix Continental Corp.

681 So. 2d 919, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11129, 1996 WL 604518

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1996

DocketNo. 96-1270

StatusPublished

This text of 681 So. 2d 919 (Airnet, Inc. v. Phoenix Continental Corp.) 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

Airnet, Inc. v. Phoenix Continental Corp., 681 So. 2d 919, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11129, 1996 WL 604518 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The non-final order under review is, in part, a discovery order for inspection and copying, and as to that aspect of it, we affirm. However, the order in question also appears to direct that Appellant’s original aircraft travel and maintenance records, the possession of which constitutes the very subject of a replevin counterclaim in this litigation, be delivered to Appellee, and as to that issue, the order is reversed.

Pre-judgment replevin is governed by the requirements of chapter 78, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record reflecting that the trial court has, at this point in the proceeding, heard evidence that Appellee is entitled to the prejudgment possession of this personal property. Although the court earlier had conducted a hearing on a motion for an order to show cause with regard to Appellant’s claim to possession of an aircraft in issue, which was resolved adversely to Appellant, no evidentiary hearing has been held on the replevin count directed at possession of the related documents.

There is also no basis in the record for concluding that Appellee has demonstrated entitlement to the original documents incident to its discovery request. Cf. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA1984).

Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

DELL, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The non-final order under review is, in part, a discovery order for inspection and copying, and as to that aspect of it, we affirm. However, the order in question also appears to direct that Appellant’s original aircraft travel and maintenance records, the possession of which constitutes the very subject of a replevin counterclaim in this litigation, be delivered to Appellee, and as to that issue, the order is reversed.

Pre-judgment replevin is governed by the requirements of chapter 78, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record reflecting that the trial court has, at this point in the proceeding, heard evidence that Appellee is entitled to the prejudgment possession of this personal property. Although the court earlier had conducted a hearing on a motion for an order to show cause with regard to Appellant’s claim to possession of an aircraft in issue, which was resolved adversely to Appellant, no evidentiary hearing has been held on the replevin count directed at possession of the related documents.

There is also no basis in the record for concluding that Appellee has demonstrated entitlement to the original documents incident to its discovery request. Cf. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA1984).

Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

DELL, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 919, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11129, 1996 WL 604518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/airnet-inc-v-phoenix-continental-corp-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack