Case Name: Gailyn W. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Finlay CORBIN, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-07-20
Citations: 546 So. 2d 723
Docket Number: No. 72922
Parties: Gailyn W. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Finlay CORBIN, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 546
Pages: 723–726

Head Matter:
Gailyn W. WHEELER, Petitioner, v. Finlay CORBIN, etc., et al., Respondents.
No. 72922.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 20, 1989.
Rhonda S. Martinec of Daniel, Komarek & Martinec, Chartered, Panama City, for petitioner.
H. Hentz McClellan of McClellan & House, P.A., Blountstown, and Frank A. Baker, Marianna, for respondents.
Enoch J. Whitney, Gen. Counsel, and Judson M. Chapman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida Dept, of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Opinion:
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Wheeler v. Corbin, 528 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), in which the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
Is a governmental agency liable to an owner for loss of use of his vehicle during forfeiture proceedings when the forfeiture is held to be unlawful upon appellate review?
Wheeler asserts that the governmental agency is liable in tort under these circumstances. We disagree and therefore answer the certified question in this context in the negative.
Wheeler loaned her 1977 Pontiac Bonneville to her longtime friend, who in turn allowed her husband to borrow the car. He was later arrested and police seized the car after discovering marijuana in the trunk. The state initiated forfeiture proceedings and the circuit court entered a judgment of forfeiture.
The district court in Wheeler v. State, 472 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), reversed the judgment of forfeiture. It found under section 932.703(2), Florida Statutes (1985), that Wheeler "neither knew nor should have known" of the illegal use and that the forfeiture therefore was improper.
Wheeler sought damages in the circuit court against respondents, mayor and police chief, for the cost to repair her car and for loss of use during the 524 days of impoundment. The circuit court denied respondents' motion to dismiss Wheeler's claim for negligent storage but granted the motion on the claim for loss of use. Wheel er appealed and the district court affirmed. Wheeler, 528 So.2d at 954.
Wheeler relies upon City of Miami Beach v. Bules, 479 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), to support her claim for loss of use. There, the district court found that the owner of an outboard runabout which the City seized in a forfeiture action was entitled to compensation for loss of use during the pendency of appeal proceedings. Significantly, the district court concluded that such compensation was "clearly contemplated by' the terms of the trial court's order" granting a stay and that such compensation was in the nature of a supersede-as. Bules, 479 So.2d at 206. Since the circuit court below imposed no such condition in its order granting a stay, Buies is inapplicable.
Wheeler's claim is analogous to a cause of action for malicious prosecution. To prevail in an action for malicious prosecution, the claimant must prove that there was an absence of probable cause to initiate proceedings. Burns v. GCC Beverages, Inc., 502 So.2d 1217, 1218 (Fla.1986). Here, Wheeler conceded that respondents had probable cause to seize her car as contraband under section 932.703.
For these reasons, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion.
. Our jurisdiction is discretionary. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
. At oral argument, Wheeler specifically stated that she does not raise any constitutional claim. The claim raised in her brief sounds exclusively in tort.
. The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, provides in part:
Any . motor vehicle . which has been or is being used in violation of any provision of s. 932.702 . may be seized and shall be forfeited subject to the provisions of this act. All rights and interest in and title to [such motor vehicle] . shall immediately vest in the state upon seizure by a law enforcement agency, subject only to perfection of title, rights, and interests in accordance with this act....
§ 932.703(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).