Edwards v. Landsman
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 45
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Edwards bought a 2004 Land Rover Range Rover from Auto Showcase on January 17, 2008; terms of the deal are disputed.
- Auto Showcase filed a complaint for replevin and breach of contract on April 2, 2008, claiming a conditional sale and presenting a Spot Delivery Agreement attached to the complaint.
- Edwards contends she owned the vehicle via a signed RISC and that she only delivered/possessed the vehicle after financing was finally approved; she signed documents and paid a $2,500 down payment.
- Edwards alleged Landsman, as owner/managing agent, repeatedly demanded return, threatened arrest, and directed others to pressure Edwards, including attempting to obtain falsified tax documents for Edwards.
- The trial court granted a motion to dismiss Edwards’s counterclaims and third-party complaint against Landsman, issuing a final judgment against Landsman, which Edwards appealed.
- The court held conversion may be pled with ownership evidence and wrongful dominion, rejected litigation immunity as a bar, and found proper joinder under Rule 1.170(h); the matter was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Edwards allege a cognizable conversion claim against Landsman? | Edwards asserts ownership and wrongful dominion by Landsman. | Landsman contends claims are barred by immunity and lack direct involvement. | Yes; Edwards states a viable conversion claim against Landsman. |
| Is Landsman protected by litigation immunity for actions outside pleadings? | Immunity does not cover Landsman’s non-pleading conduct. | Landsman argues acts occurred during litigation and are privileged. | No; immunity does not shield Landsman from non-pleading conduct alleged. |
| Was Landsman properly joined under Rule 1.170(h)? | Presence of Landsman was required for complete relief. | Joinder under 1.170(h) should be disallowed. | Yes; joinder under 1.170(h) proper. |
| Did Edwards plead sufficient facts to support ownership and wrongful dominion over the vehicle and down payment? | RISC and possession after approved financing support ownership and dominion. | Spot Delivery Agreement and replevin context negate ownership. | Yes; sufficient facts alleged to support ownership and wrongful dominion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (conversion requires ownership and wrongful dominion)
- Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Prestige Rent-A-Car, Inc., 715 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (prejudgment writ of replevin and counterclaims separate remedies)
- Rem-Con Commc’ns, Inc. v. United Am. Bank of Memphis, 668 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (remedies for wrongful repossession exist alongside replevin)
- Lease Fin. Corp. v. Nat’l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (tort remedies available under general tort law alongside contract actions)
- P.V. Constr. Corp. v. Kovner, 538 So.2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (liability extends to corporate officer’s participation in tort)
- Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (litigation immunity covers acts during course of judicial proceedings)
- King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 900 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (spot delivery agreements contemplated; conditional sales permissible)
- Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So.3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (de novo review of dismissal standard; four-corners rule)
- Goodall v. Whispering Woods Ctr., L.L.C., 990 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (complaint must allege ultimate facts for relief)