Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. v. Parker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. v. Parker

591 So. 2d 1145, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1992

DocketNo. 91-821

StatusPublished

This text of 591 So. 2d 1145 (Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. v. Parker) 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

Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. v. Parker, 591 So. 2d 1145, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 224 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

Dennis and Georgia Parker were in the process of purchasing 45% of the stock of Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. from Judy and Armand Savoie when a dispute arose. To protect their interest under the stock purchase agreement, the Parkers confiscated jewelry belonging to the corporation.

In the replevin action that followed, the court found that the jewelry did in fact belong to the corporation and required its return upon the posting of a $50,000 re-plevin bond.

The court, in the order establishing the bond, also required that the corporation “control the sale of the jewelry by maintaining records which show which item of jewelry was sold, when it was sold and for what amount it was sold and the form of payment received.”

The bond was posted¹ and the corporation regained possession of its property. Ultimately the corporation went out of business and it was determined that the records required by the court had not been properly maintained. As punishment for noncompliance with its previous order, the court forfeited the replevin bond to the Parkers. We reverse.

The Parkers concede that the property redelivered under the replevin bond did in fact belong to the corporation. Thus we do not have a wrongful replevin claim. Although the court has various methods to enforce its orders, including contempt, improperly forfeiting a replevin bond is not one. In addition, since the Parkers had made only a small portion of the substantial purchase price for their stock; there is nothing in the record which indicates that their damages even approach the bond forfeiture amount.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

Dennis and Georgia Parker were in the process of purchasing 45% of the stock of Hock It To Me Paun, Inc. from Judy and Armand Savoie when a dispute arose. To protect their interest under the stock purchase agreement, the Parkers confiscated jewelry belonging to the corporation.

In the replevin action that followed, the court found that the jewelry did in fact belong to the corporation and required its return upon the posting of a $50,000 re-plevin bond.

The court, in the order establishing the bond, also required that the corporation “control the sale of the jewelry by maintaining records which show which item of jewelry was sold, when it was sold and for what amount it was sold and the form of payment received.”

The bond was posted¹ and the corporation regained possession of its property. Ultimately the corporation went out of business and it was determined that the records required by the court had not been properly maintained. As punishment for noncompliance with its previous order, the court forfeited the replevin bond to the Parkers. We reverse.

The Parkers concede that the property redelivered under the replevin bond did in fact belong to the corporation. Thus we do not have a wrongful replevin claim. Although the court has various methods to enforce its orders, including contempt, improperly forfeiting a replevin bond is not one. In addition, since the Parkers had made only a small portion of the substantial purchase price for their stock; there is nothing in the record which indicates that their damages even approach the bond forfeiture amount.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 So. 2d 1145, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hock-it-to-me-paun-inc-v-parker-fladistctapp-1992.