The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 83
LANDLORD AND TENANT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 83.19

83.19 Sale of property distrained.—

(1) If the judgment is for plaintiff and the property in whole or in part has not been replevied, it, or the part not restored to the defendant, shall be sold and the proceeds applied on the payment of the execution. If the rental or any part of it is due in agricultural products and the property distrained, or any part of it, is of a similar kind to that claimed in the complaint, the property up to a quantity to be adjudged of by the officer holding the execution (not exceeding that claimed), may be delivered to the plaintiff as a payment on the plaintiff’s execution at his or her request.

(2) When any property levied on is sold, it shall be advertised two times, the first advertisement being at least 10 days before the sale. All property so levied on shall be sold at the location advertised in the notice of sheriff’s sale.

(3) Before the sale if defendant appeals and obtains supersedeas and pays all costs accrued up to the time that the supersedeas becomes operative, the property shall be restored to defendant and there shall be no sale.

(4) In case any property is sold to satisfy any rent payable in cotton or other agricultural product or thing, the officer shall settle with the plaintiff at the value of the rental at the time it became due.

History.—ss. 5, 6, ch. 3131, 1879; RS 1769; GS 2245; RGS 3564; CGL 5428; s. 34, ch. 67-254; s. 19, ch. 82-66; s. 10, ch. 83-255; s. 436, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 83.19 on Google Scholar

F.S. 83.19 on Casetext

Amendments to 83.19

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 83.19

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 83.19.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

BUCCINA, v. GRIMSBY,, 337 F. Supp. 3d 725 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

. . . collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this subpart (Rules 4-19) (§§ 83.04 through 83.19 . . .

UNITED STATES v. HAMDAN, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (U.S.C.M.R. 2011)

. . . Rights and Other Instruments 1, 8 n. 35 (Beijing, China, 2007) (citing Canadian Criminal Code §§ 83.18, 83.19 . . . See also Canadian Criminal Code §§ 83.18, 83.19, 83.2, 83.21, and 83.22. . . . .

H. RICH v. L. SPARTIS, 516 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . The closing price for each share that day was $83.19. . . .

WESCH, v. HUNT,, 785 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ala. 1992)

. . . Block 439 28 100.00% 0 0.00% 28 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 440 119 100.00% 20 16.81% 99 83.19% . . .

COCKERHAM, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 895 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1990)

. . . .-1526(b), 416.926(b); see S.S.R. 83.19 (Cum. Ed.1988). . . .

DAYTONA PLAZA, INC. v. HOWARD,, 38 Fla. Supp. 2d 151 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

. . . See § 83.11 - 83.19 Fla. Stat. (1987). . . .

BALDWIN v. AGNETTI, v. FOUTS, 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 56 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1988)

. . . perfect a landlord’s lien for rent is through statutory action for Distress as provided by F.S. 83.11-83.19 . . .

MARCUS, W. W. v. HECKLER,, 620 F. Supp. 1218 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . equivalence; (h) evaluate the medical equivalence of combined impairments except as set forth in SASR 83.19 . . .

CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA, 452 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1981)

. . . N 21°01'27" W 83.19 feet; 67. N 10°39'51" E 44.53 feet; 68. N 02°15/38" W 45.67 feet; 69. . . . N 21°01/27" W 83.19 feet; 67. N 10o39'51" E 44.53 feet; 68. N 02°15'38" W 45.67 feet; 69. . . .

DREWRY v. THOMPSON DOOR COMPANY,, 47 Fla. Supp. 177 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)

. . . aforementioned distress writ was issued pursuant to the statutory procedures outlined in §83.11 through §83.19 . . .

SEA- LAND SERVICE, INC. v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SEA- LAND SERVICE, INC. v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,, 552 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1977)

. . . proper party before the ALJ or the BRB, see cases discussed in 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Laws § 83.19 . . .

JOHNSTON v. WILSON, 45 Fla. Supp. 89 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1976)

. . . residential tenancies, leaving that remedy available only to the non-residential landlord (§§83.11 through 83.19 . . .

PITTSTON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. DELLAVENTURA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, NORTHEAST MARINE TERMINAL COMPANY, INC. v. CAPUTO, U. S. D. L. PITTSTON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, v. SCAFFIDI U. S. D. L. INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL OPERATING COMPANY, INC. v. BLUNDO, U. S. D. L., 544 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1976)

. . . proper party before the ALJ or the BRB, see cases discussed in 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Laws § 83.19 . . .

JOHNSON v. RIVERSIDE HOTEL, INC. a, 399 F. Supp. 1138 (S.D. Fla. 1975)

. . . (Florida’s Distress Statutes §§ 83.08, 83.09, 83.11-83.15, 83.18 and 83.19 were declared unconstitutional . . .

S. GILPIN, M. v. KANSAS STATE HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, INC., 377 F. Supp. 1233 (D. Kan. 1973)

. . . sustained in the amount of $1,233.19, encompassing an attorney fee allowance of $1150.00, and expenses of $83.19 . . .

STROEMER, a v. L. SHEVIN,, 399 F. Supp. 993 (S.D. Fla. 1973)

. . . is whether the Florida Distress Statutes, 83.08, 83.09, 83.11, 83.12, 83.13, 83.14, 83.15, 83.18 and 83.19 . . . been restored to the Defendant, it is sold and the proceeds applied to the Plaintiff’s judgment (F.S.83.19 . . .

WILLSCOTT, INC. a v. ULLMAN, 117 So. 2d 856 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

. . . and for further proceedings in the circuit court, as provided for in such cases under §§ 83.18 and 83.19 . . .

WICK ROOFING COMPANY, v. D. CURTIS, 110 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1959)

. . . Mass. 180, 179 N.E. 684, 79 A.L.R. 669; Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 2, Sections 83.10-83.19 . . .

LOVERIDGE, v. BUEHLER,, 12 Fla. Supp. 120 (Brevard Cty. Cir. Ct. 1957)

. . . Section 83.19 provides that the property shall be sold if the verdict and judgment are for the plaintiff . . .

ANGELES BROKERAGE CO. v. CARLO PANNO FRUIT CO., 211 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1954)

. . . The difference, or $83.19, was paid by the Los Angeles broker and later paid by An-geles. . . .

HARRIS TRUST SAVINGS BANK v. CHICAGO RYS. CO. FIRST NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO v. CHICAGO CITY RY. CO., 17 F. Supp. 181 (N.D. Ill. 1936)

. . . .$94,634,296.66 $78,727,800.00 83.19 South Side Lines Bonds: Chicago City Railway Company First Mortgage . . .

STEINBECK v. BON HOMME MINING CO. BON HOMME MINING CO. v. STEINBECK, 152 F. 333 (8th Cir. 1907)

. . . wrote to the company that he had done so; that the original purchase price of the certificate was $83.19 . . .