Ocean Bank v. Save Import & Export, Inc.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order denying Ocean Bank’s motion to set aside a final judgment of forfeiture on the grounds that it was void where the bank had not been served with process pursuant to the Forfeiture Statute, section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1997).1
At oral argument both parties correctly agreed that Ocean Bank had a perfected security interest in the Save Import CD which was pledged as collateral for the letter of credit by virtue of the bank’s possession of the CD.2 Thus, with regard to that interest, pursuant to statute, the state was required to serve Ocean Bank with a copy of the forfeiture complaint. Accordingly, the forfeiture of the CD was void as a matter of law, and Ocean Bank’s motion to vacate should have been granted in part.3 See Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla.1992) (forfeiture actions are not favored in law or equity, and, therefore must be strictly construed). See also, e.g., Paredes v. Cochran, 666 So.2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (denial of motion to vacate in forfeiture action reversed where service of process was not properly effectuated).
[611]*611Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
797 So. 2d 609 (Ocean Bank v. Save Import & Export, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.