Case Name: G. Thomas HUTCHENS, Appellant, v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-04-21
Citations: 541 So. 2d 618
Docket Number: No. 87-1515
Parties: G. Thomas HUTCHENS, Appellant, v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A., Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 541
Pages: 618–624

Head Matter:
G. Thomas HUTCHENS, Appellant, v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A., Appellee.
No. 87-1515.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 21, 1988.
On Motion for Rehearing En Banc April 13, 1989.
Harry L. Lamb, Jr., of Perry & Lamb, P.A., Sanford, for appellant.
Charles G. DeMarco, P.A., Maitland, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, Chief Judge.
Hutchens appeals from a non-final order denying his motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of replevin and recover possession of a Mercedes automobile from Maxi-centers, U.S.A. We agree that Maxicen-ters established a prima facie right to possession of the Mercedes through constructive trust principles, and that venue was properly set in Orange County because the car was actually seized in Orange County and had been used in Orange County. § 78.03, Fla.Stat. (1987).
However, we agree with Hutchens that the trial court erred in requiring a replevin bond of only $1,000.00. The replevin statute provides:
The petitioner must post bond in the amount of twice the value of the goods subject to the writ or twice the balance remaining due and owing, whichever is lesser as determined by the court as security for the payment of damages the defendant may sustain when the writ is obtained wrongfully. (Emphasis supplied).
The factual dispute in this case concerning the parties' respective rights to the Mercedes does not turn on any sums due under a contract between the parties. Compare Lease Financing Corporation v. National Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Therefore, the only applicable statutory factor is the value of the car replevined. Evidence at the hearing indicated Hutchens paid $34,-113.00 for the car. Therefore, the replevin bond should be at least double that amount.
Accordingly, we affirm, but remand with directions to the trial court to set the re-plevin bond at twice the value of the Mercedes.
AFFIRM; REMAND WITH DIRECTIONS TO INCREASE THE RE-PLEVIN BOND.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.