Sun Bank/Miami, N.A. v. Arnold

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Bank/Miami, N.A. v. Arnold

575 So. 2d 798, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2114, 1991 WL 32089

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1991

DocketNo. 90-0156

StatusPublished

This text of 575 So. 2d 798 (Sun Bank/Miami, N.A. v. Arnold) 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

Sun Bank/Miami, N.A. v. Arnold, 575 So. 2d 798, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2114, 1991 WL 32089 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s claim for a deficiency judgment.

The record provided reflects the following pertinent facts: appellant repossessed appellee’s vehicle for failure to make payments under a financing agreement, appellant failed to properly notify appellee of the subsequent repossession sale; only three bids were submitted during the ensuing sale, all of which were from automobile dealers; Margate Auto Center prepared the automobile for sale, handled the advertising, submitted the highest bid and collected a five percent sales commission on its own purchase. Margate’s commission and expenses were then added to appellee’s outstanding balance as costs incident to the' repossession sale.

We find competent and substantial evidence on the record provided to support the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s claim for a deficiency judgment.

The record provided reflects the following pertinent facts: appellant repossessed appellee’s vehicle for failure to make payments under a financing agreement, appellant failed to properly notify appellee of the subsequent repossession sale; only three bids were submitted during the ensuing sale, all of which were from automobile dealers; Margate Auto Center prepared the automobile for sale, handled the advertising, submitted the highest bid and collected a five percent sales commission on its own purchase. Margate’s commission and expenses were then added to appellee’s outstanding balance as costs incident to the' repossession sale.

We find competent and substantial evidence on the record provided to support the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 So. 2d 798, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2114, 1991 WL 32089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-bankmiami-na-v-arnold-fladistctapp-1991.