to florida statute by ruling the title passed on delivery of the contract the court found to be enforceable under the statute of frauds the one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars oral contract referenced in an  sixty e mail came into existence after delivery appellee takes pains to link the enforceable written contract that was not formed until after delivery to prevail in every discussions but that's not what the  at page ten of the court's ruling the court finds that quote the earlier oral agreement contained the following terms one the sale price of the clue was one hundred and fifty five one thousand dollars and in the very email the court adopts it that this contract occurred after the boat had been delivered dr libby clearly testified that the one hundred and fifty million five thousand dollars or agreement occurred after delivery to respectfully the trial court misapplied after contract and subsection three discusses delivery before contract both of those are subject to the general rule of subsection one so my position is and what i would ask the court to reverse on is that the court's findings that the one hundred and fifty five thousand dollar contract memorialized in the april two thousand and sixteen email is the enforceable contract and that renders title passage impossible because the court did not find and indeed could not find that the one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars contract existed before deliberate so even if title passed the judgment still must be reversed because the court found that dr libby breached the contract awarding four thousand dollars even though nine thousand dollars would have been owed under the court's own analysis the court found that dr  to the opinion at a believe that was three that's where the judge restate this contract and this is the e mail and what it starts out is it says we  costless did testify to but then the court says that the agreement that survives the statute of frauds follows and he says after the boat was down your way and you started to work parties testified that that one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars discussion an agreement occurred before the e mail that is mr dr libby testified that at occurred sometime in september says after the boat was down your way so that the critical distinction i'm drawing is the port never sat and never found i find that there was a firm written agreement or a firm agreement does the revives the statute of one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars that was entered before delivery that that finding is not what the court said and i don't think that finding can be in interprete that possibly as it is it is a valid a world agreement that does not comply with the statute of frauds is not a contract for purposes of transferring title under six hundred and seventy two point four  and seventy two point forty one two a and b both say if the companies start with the sentence if the contract requires and contract is a defined term and that means th contract that survives the statute of frauds taking the course if we just go forward with that discussion if a contract that does not survive the statute of and seventy two point four one because my client would have still retained security interest that's the way it works it doesn't disappear we just get converted from title holder to approve to an dollars lets us take possession of the vehicle search of the vessel so the only difference would have been that had we acted as a secure and perfected but secured lead predator my client would have had to go through breached the contract and by that breach gave my client the right if you're going to if we're going to apply sixty seven the two point four one to construct passage of owns and title to the not a clue and because of that the remaining claims for conversion civil theft false arrest a malicious prosecution fail i want to start with the issue of ownership because that's where the court and transfer of title to the clue and the existence of a contract was clear coaster let's testify at trial that the reason he delivered the clue to my client's fort myers beach home was because the parties had an agreement and place my opponent has just said he did not contest that finding and both coastal and dr levy testified they had a agreement for the sale of the not a clue that was this is just like the palm here for the court said look the agreement between the parties is silent about how title is the past and because in that case the good was not to be delivered by moving  cited to us to florida supreme court cases both of which said that you do not have a right to own or possess a vessel or good or anything based on a lien you have to foreclose on that never  lines likewise my client's ownership and title holding status as the district court found correctly and properly defeats the false arrest a malicious prosecution claims because as the owner of this boat at the time this all occurred my client had the good faith belief that he was in fact the owner based on the very documents that the district court found made him the owner and title holder such that he could not  his own independent investigation and that investigation led to the finding that the crew was hot wired and that poster park far away from my clients and that's important because arrested and once more coastal it fails to even prove the initial element of malicious prosecution which was the initiation of a criminal proceeding in the briefs we cite or you have to have an information file that never occurred here the district court correctly ruled against coaster lets on the malicious prosecution claim which doesn't really leaves us with importantly the district court despite having said that the buyer still owed money under that purchase and sale agreement also hell that the buyer still was the owner and title holder to the  reason being just like here the contract was silent and did not in any way shape or form state that payment in full of the purchase price had to be paid and order for title two packs and so for those reasons we would request that this court affirm the final judgment in all respects thank you thank you some a nominal down payment and that mr libby then left the transaction only this boat for you clear with no competing obligation to pay the amount due that's not what the court ron no you know that the august of two thousand and fifteen is when the clue is taken down to fort myers april of two thousand and sixteen is the date of among the pardons i believe thirty thousand dollars for that was a thirty thousand dollars payment or not according to your client correct after the april two thousand and sixteen e mail not before delivery of the made in august of two thousand and fifteen then the then than not a clue went down sometime in august around august nd of two thousand and fifteen dr libby clearly testified in two thousand and fifty they have the oral agreement for one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars that's then documented april of two thousand and sixteen and after that mr libby gives them the title to the try marie so i'm not contesting that the april two hundred and sixteen million one hundred and fifty five thousand dollars contract is binding as the court found i'm contending that that clearly was answered