78.21
Judgment for defendant when goods not retained by, or redelivered to, defendant.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
78.21 Judgment for defendant when goods not retained by, or redelivered to, defendant.—When the property has not been retained by, or redelivered to, defendant and he or she prevails, judgment shall be entered against plaintiff for possession of the property and costs and against plaintiff for the value of the property and costs in the same manner as provided in s. 78.19 for judgment in favor of plaintiff. The value of each article of the goods replevied shall be found as directed in s. 78.19 with the same exception. The remedies provided in s. 78.20 and this section shall not preclude any other remedies available under the laws of this state.
History.—s. 13, Mar. 11, 1845; RS 1725; GS 2189; RGS 3494; s. 1, ch. 9320, 1923; CGL 5347; s. 28, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 73-20; s. 412, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1948–2011 · leading case: In Re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations—Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Pr
In Re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations—Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Pr (2011)
“Section 78.21, Florida Statutes (1995), does not provide for an award of attorneys’ fees when the defendant prevails and possession had been temporarily retaken by the plaintiff.”
Sag Harbour Marine, Inc. v. Fickett (1986)
“Sag Harbour raises four issues: (1) The award of attorney's fees was not proper under section 78.21, Florida Statutes (1981); (2) appellant is the prevailing party and entitled to recover its costs under section 78.”
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (2000)
“Section 78.21, Florida Statutes (1995), does not provide for an award of attorneys^ fees when the defendant prevails and possession had been temporarily retaken by the plaintiff.”
Lease Fin. v. Nat. Commuter Airlines (1985)
“If NCA ultimately obtains a final judgment in its favor it has a remedy under section 78.21, Florida Statutes (1983). In addition, this section specifically provides that it does not preclude any other remedies available under the laws of this state.”
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Thomas Gordon & Associates, Inc. (2001)
“Section 78.21, which contains no authority for awarding attorney’s fees, is the only arguably relevant statute and it provides as follows: When the property has not been retained by, or redelivered to, defendant and he or she prevails, judgment shall be entered against plaintiff…”
Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank (1981)
“Section 78.21 makes similar provision for judgment in favor of the defendant under circumstances where the goods have not been retained by or redelivered to him, if "he prevails.”
INTERN. FIDELITY v. Prestige Rent-A-Car (1998)
“See § 78.21, Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court did not enter an order directing Advantage to return the automobiles because Advantage had admitted that all of the automobiles had already been sold.”
Modine Manufacturing Company v. Israel (1974)
“Fla. Stat. § 78.21 , F.S.A. provides that when property replevied has not been redelivered to the defendant, and he ultimately prevails, judgment shall be entered in his favor for possession and for, ".”
McMurrain v. Fason (1991)
“*1034 Section 78.21 provides that where the property is not redelivered to the defendant and the defendant prevails, judgment shall be entered against [the] plaintiff for possession of the property and costs and against him for the value of the property and costs in the same…”
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mercer (1971)
“Section 78.21, F.S.A.” (Emphasis supplied) The surety, Travelers Indemnity Company, appellant herein, takes the position that the final judgment which was predicated upon the above quoted language is erroneous by reason of the fact that such judgment binds the surety to a person…”
Wood v. Weeks (1955)
“It is our view that the value fixed should have been special value to the defendant, based on competent evidence and appropriate instructions and that in order to support the award for detention damages, some appropriate evidence should have been offered.”
Butler v. Mirabelli (1965)
“Plaintiff contends defendant was correctly denied damages because the controlling statute, Fla. Stat. 78.21, F.S.A., makes no provision therefor.”
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.