Title: Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corporation
Citation: 85 So. 2d 874
Docket Number: N/A
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 1956

85 So. 2d 874 (1956)
Denver F. DICKS, Appellant,
v.
COLONIAL FINANCE CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.
March 7, 1956.
Williams &amp; Futch, Starke, and T.E. Duncan, Gainesville, for appellant.
Adair, Ulmer, Murchison, Kent &amp; Ashby, Jacksonville, and B.R. Burnsed, Macclenny, for appellee.
O'CONNELL, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered for the appellee, plaintiff below, Colonial Finance Corporation, *875 in a replevin action instituted against the appellant, defendant below, Denver Dicks.
The facts are not disputed. They are set forth in a memorandum decision, entered by the Circuit Court, and are as follows:
"Findings of Fact
In taking his appeal the appellant raises three questions, to wit:
1. Is appellee estopped from asserting its lien against appellant by reason of its conduct in filing its lien for record? (Appellant did not file its lien, in the office of the Motor Vehicle Commission in Tallahassee, within 10 days as required by Section 319.23(5), F.S.A.)
2. When are liens considered filed under the terms of Chapter 319, F.S.A., i.e. when submitted to an agent of the Motor Vehicle Commissioner in the field, or when actually received by the Motor Vehicle Commissioner in Tallahassee?
3. Was there a duty on the part of appellant to make inquiry to each of the private tag agencies in the State of Florida as to liens, or could he rely on the records of the Motor Vehicle Commissioner in Tallahassee?
The first question, that of estoppel, is disposed of on technical grounds. The appellant, in paragraph 6 of his answer, pleaded estoppel as a defense. On motion of appellee, this portion of the answer was stricken by the court and appellant was allowed to plead further, which he did not do. Estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded and is waived if not pleaded. MacGregor v. Hosack, Fla., 58 So. 2d 513. 30 F.S.A. Florida Common Law Rules, Rule 9(d). Further, the action of the court in striking the pertinent portion of appellant's answer is not assigned as error, and therefore is not properly before us.
The second question raised by appellant does not appear to be based on any ruling or decision of the court below, and in any event we think it is unnecessary to be decided by us in reaching a decision since we do not agree, as contended by appellant, that Section 319.15, F.S.A., is applicable, but construe the following portion of Section 319.27(2) to be controlling in factual situations such as found here.
We have previously held that Section 319.27, F.S.A., controls the rights of the owners of chattel mortgages, conditional sales contracts, or similar instruments covering a motor vehicle. McQueen v. M &amp; J Finance Corp., Fla., 59 So. 2d 49; Livingston v. National Shawmut Bank of Boston, Fla., 62 So. 2d 13; Vincent v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Fla., 75 So. 2d 778.
The third question raised by appellant need not be considered, since it does not relate to any ruling or decision of the court below, was not essential to its conclusion, and need not be determined by this Court in reaching a decision.
The basic question to be determined is whether the lien acquired by Colonial Finance Corporation was valid as against the appellant, who claims to be a good faith purchaser, for value and without notice of appellee's lien.
We feel that the court below decided this question properly. Appellant does not contend that the conditional sales contract, which was assigned to appellee, was not valid as against K.W. O'Haver, through whom appellant must trace his title. In the absence of some intervening principle of estoppel, no one can convey better title than he has, and conversely, in the absence of some such intervening right, one cannot claim a better title than he, in fact, receives. Glass v. Continental *877 Guaranty Corporation, 81 Fla. 687, 88 So. 876, 25 A.L.R. 312; Commercial Credit Co. v. Neel, 91 Fla. 505, 107 So. 639. As above stated the question of estoppel is not before us. Therefore, we must conclude that appellee's lien was a valid first lien, subject to its being recorded, according to the statute, before any other lien was recorded.
Appellee did file the first application for original certificate of title and its lien was properly shown thereon. Its lien therefore was prior in dignity to the rights of appellee. § 319.27(2), supra.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
DREW, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.