Case Name: LANDMARK FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellant, v. BEACH BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP, INC., John J. Day and Henrietta Day a/k/a Hedy Day, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-10-05
Citations: 449 So. 2d 1287
Docket Number: No. 82-1728
Parties: LANDMARK FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellant, v. BEACH BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP, INC., John J. Day and Henrietta Day a/k/a Hedy Day, Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 449
Pages: 1287–1289

Head Matter:
LANDMARK FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Appellant, v. BEACH BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP, INC., John J. Day and Henrietta Day a/k/a Hedy Day, Appellees.
No. 82-1728.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 5, 1983.
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1984.
Brian F. Leary of English, McCaughan & O’Bryan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Alan H. Fein of Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson & Greer, P.A., Miami, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Bank obtained a prejudgment writ of replevin based on a verified pleading in which it averred that appellee failed to make payment as agreed. Thereafter, at the defendant/appellee's request, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and dissolved the writ even though the bank substantiated its allegation. We reverse.
Section 78.068, Florida Statutes (1981), was crafted by the Florida Legislature to conform with the principles enunciated in Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974). The statute withstood a due process challenge in Gazil v. Super Food Services, Inc., 356 So.2d 312 (Fla.1978). Section 78.068(2) indicates that a "prejudgment writ of replevin may issue if the court finds . that the defendant has failed to make payment as agreed." Commenting on the adequacy of this ground, the Florida Supreme Court observed that "[w]e do not see in Mitchell or any subsequent Supreme Court decision a limitation on the state's right to identify the circumstances which are appropriate for replevin." Gazil v. Super Food Services, Inc., supra at 313 n. 4.
Section 78.068(6), Florida Statutes (1981), states that a defendant "may obtain the dissolution of a prejudgment writ of replev-in unless the petition proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued." In the case at bar, the ground of nonpayment was alleged and proved. Thus, the trial court erred in dissolving the writ. Accordingly, the order is
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.