78.20
Judgment for defendant when goods retained by, or redelivered to, defendant.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
78.20 Judgment for defendant when goods retained by, or redelivered to, defendant.—When property has been retained by, or redelivered to, defendant on his or her forthcoming bond or upon the dissolution of a prejudgment writ and defendant prevails, he or she shall have judgment against plaintiff for his or her damages for the taking, if any, of the property, attorney fees, and costs. The remedies provided in this section and s. 78.21 shall not preclude any other remedies available under the laws of this state.
History.—s. 12, Mar. 11, 1845; RS 1725; GS 2189; RGS 3494; CGL 5347; s. 28, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 73-20; s. 2, ch. 76-19; s. 411, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1948–2022 · leading case: Sag Harbour Marine, Inc. v. Fickett
Sag Harbour Marine, Inc. v. Fickett (1986)
“Appellees also contend that we have erred in considering the trial court's ruling on their entitlement to attorney's fees under section 78.20, Florida Statutes, because appellant failed to properly preserve such issue for appellate review.”
In Re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations—Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Pr (2011)
“Section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1995), provides for an award of attorneys’ fees.”
Gimbel v. Intern. Mailing & Printing Co. (1987)
“The court also ruled that International would be entitled to a reasonable attorneys fee on the replevin count pursuant to section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1985). A hearing was held on June 11, 1986, resulting in an award of attorneys fees in the amount of ,000.”
Edwards v. Landsman (2011)
“” §§ 78.20-21, Fla. Stat. (2010). Florida case law suggests — and we agree — that such remedies include a conversion counterclaim to the replevin action.”
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (2000)
“Section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1995), provides for an award of attorneys^ fees.”
Wilkerson v. Johnson (2014)
“§ 78.20, Fla. Stat. (2011). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the trial court must determine a reasonable number of hours expended, a reasonable hourly rate, and multiply these figures together to obtain the lodestar amount, which is “an objective basis for the award…”
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Thomas Gordon & Associates, Inc. (2001)
“Section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1987), which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees, is inapplicable under the facts of this case because the subject property was not retained by Thomas Gordon Associates, nor redelivered to it on its forthcoming bond, nor upon the dissolution…”
Trans Atlantic Distributors, L.P. v. Whiland Co., S.A. (1996)
“The issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that attorney’s fees and costs are immediately awardable under section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1993), solely upon the dissolution of a prejudgment writ of replevin.”
Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank (1981)
“This is evident from the provisions of Section 78.20, which provides that when property has been redelivered to the defendant "upon the dissolution of a prejudgment *90 writ" [2] (or upon his forthcoming bond) and "defendant prevails," the defendant is entitled to judgment…”
McMurrain v. Fason (1991)
“Section 78.20 provides that upon the dissolution of a prejudgment writ, the defendant is to have judgment against plaintiff for his damages for the taking, if any, of the property, attorney fees, and costs.”
Michigan National Bank of Detroit v. Maierhoffer (1979)
“Maierhoffer, on his cross-appeal, urges that the trial court erred in denying him an attorneys fee based upon Section 78.20, Florida Statutes (1977). The trial judge denied an attorneys fee to the successful defendant without setting forth any reason for the denial.”
State ex rel. O'Hara v. Justice (1959)
“, which is ftiade applicable to the instant case under provisions of §§ 78.20 and 78.21, F.S.A., it is clear that when a replevin action is dismissed for want of plaintiff’s prosecution upon the defendant’s motion, the defendant is entitled to a judgment for the property and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.