Case Name: MEADOW GROVES MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a The Groves, Appellant, v. John McKNIGHT, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-01-24
Citations: 689 So. 2d 315
Docket Number: No. 95-1554
Parties: MEADOW GROVES MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a The Groves, Appellant, v. John McKNIGHT, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, COBB, GOSHORN, HARRIS, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 689
Pages: 315–320

Head Matter:
MEADOW GROVES MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a The Groves, Appellant, v. John McKNIGHT, Appellee.
No. 95-1554.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 24, 1997.
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1997.
John S. Penton, Jr., and Philip D. Storey of Stump, Storey & Callahan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Ralph Armstead and Robert K. Dwyer of Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc., Orlando, for Appellee.

Opinion:
EN BANC
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
Meadow Groves Management, Inc., d/b/a The Groves, appeals a non-final order temporarily enjoining it from selling a mobile home owned by its former tenant and appellee, John McKnight. We affirm.
McKnight rented a space for his mobile home in The Groves' mobile home park. He failed to pay rent and The Groves obtained a final judgment for possession of the rental space on April 3, 1995. The Groves then obtained a writ of possession on April 13, 1995, commanding the sheriff to "remove all persons and property from the . (mobile home lot)." The sheriff removed McKnight from the premises but his mobile home remained.
The Groves then proceeded to follow the statutory summary procedure of section 713.78, Florida Statutes (1993), by advertising to sell McKnight's mobile home for unpaid rent. McKnight then asked the circuit court to enjoin The Groves from conducting the sale because the mobile home was exempt as homestead property pursuant to section 222.05, Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court arrived at the correct result by granting the injunction but for an incorrect reason.
Section 713.78(2) entitles a person regularly engaged in the business of transporting vehicles by wrecker, tow truck, or car carrier, to a hen for towing and storage fees. The lien may be enforced by retention of possession and eventual public auction if the requirements of section 713.78 are met. The problem with The Groves' attempt to invoke the statute is that it is not regularly engaged in the business of transporting vehicles. Therefore, it does not qualify to use the summary procedure prescribed by section 713.78(5) to enforce its lien for rent.
McKnight's claim that his mobile home is exempt from sale because it is homestead property fails since the exemption was extinguished when the county court determined that The Groves was entitled to possession of its mobile home lot on April 3, 1995, due to McKnight's failure to fulfil his contractual obligation to pay rent in return for lawful possession of the lot. At that time he was no longer in lawful possession of the mobile home lot occupied by his mobile home as required by section 222.05, Florida Statutes (1993):,
Setting apart leasehold. — Any person owning and occupying any dwelling house, including a mobile home used as a residence, or modular home, on land not his own which he may lawfully possess, by lease or otherwise, and claiming such house, mobile home, or modular home as his homestead, shall be entitled to the exemption of such house, mobile home, or modular home from levy and sale as aforesaid.
(Emphasis added.) We recognize that McKnight's counsel argued that McKnight was prevented from removing his mobile home from the rented space at some point in time not reflected in the record. However, the record does not reflect evidence of the prevention. Upon remand, the trial court may consider evidence of any attempt to defeat McKnight's homestead exemption by preventing him from removing his mobile home while he was in lawful possession of the rental space.
The order temporarily enjoining The Groves from conducting a sale pursuant to section 713.78, Florida Statutes (1993) is affirmed because the record does not reflect that The Groves qualifies as an entity entitled to use the sale procedure set forth in section 713.78(5). Because the trial court reserved jurisdiction over the claim for unpaid rent, we remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, COBB, GOSHORN, HARRIS, GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
W. SHARP, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
THOMPSON, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion in which W. SHARP, J., concurs.