Southeast Bank, N.A. v. McNickles

Florida Circuit Courts

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. McNickles

8 Fla. Supp. 2d 28

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 1985

DocketCase No. 83-147 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Southeast Bank, N.A. v. McNickles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. McNickles, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 28 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[29]*29OPINION OF THE COURT

NADLER, J.

The lower court dismissed this case on the ground that the Plaintiff-Appellant breached its “judiciary responsibility” to its customer in failing to assist Defendant-Appellee in securing from the Third Party Defendant-Appellee (Toyota Auto Rental, Inc.) the quality of the work he desired.

This case presents only one question, whether a creditor is entitled to the recovery of costs and a deficiency after repossessing an automobile upon default of payment.

A secured creditor upon default by a debtor is entitled to full payment fo the debt owed. Swindel v. General Finance Corp. of Florida, 265 So.2d 393 (1st DCA).

Additionally, on the authority of Lake City Auto Finance v. Waldron, 83 So.2d 877 (Supreme Court of Florida), the Defendant-Appellee’s equitable interest in the automobile and the insurance payment became extinguished once he defaulted on payments. Since the Plaintiff-Appellant had sole interest in the automobile, the DefendantAppellee illegally converted the insurance proceeds.

REVERSED with instructions to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff-Appellant and against the Defendant-Appellee (McNickles).

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