Stern v. 168 Associates, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stern v. 168 Associates, Inc.

575 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1991 WL 26822

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1574

StatusPublished

This text of 575 So. 2d 754 (Stern v. 168 Associates, Inc.) 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

Stern v. 168 Associates, Inc., 575 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1991 WL 26822 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edward Stern appeals a final order determining the priority of claims against personal property. Stern challenges the trial court’s ruling that the claim of appellee Consolidated Associates, Ltd., was superior to that of Stern with respect to certain specific items of personalty.

We conclude that the trial court ruling was correct. The transaction between Stern and John C. Malloy was in substance one which created a security interest in personal property. § 679.102, Fla.Stat. (1989). As the security interest was not perfected by filing, it was not entitled to priority over Consolidated’s execution lien. See §§ 679.301-.303, Fla.Stat. (1989). No reversible error has been shown by Stern’s [755]*755points on appeal. The order under review is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Edward Stern appeals a final order determining the priority of claims against personal property. Stern challenges the trial court’s ruling that the claim of appellee Consolidated Associates, Ltd., was superior to that of Stern with respect to certain specific items of personalty.

We conclude that the trial court ruling was correct. The transaction between Stern and John C. Malloy was in substance one which created a security interest in personal property. § 679.102, Fla.Stat. (1989). As the security interest was not perfected by filing, it was not entitled to priority over Consolidated’s execution lien. See §§ 679.301-.303, Fla.Stat. (1989). No reversible error has been shown by Stern’s [755]*755points on appeal. The order under review is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 So. 2d 754, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1604, 1991 WL 26822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-168-associates-inc-fladistctapp-1991.