Florida Statute 78.02 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 78
REPLEVIN

View Entire Chapter

78.02 What may not be taken by replevin.—No replevin shall lie:

(1) For any property taken by virtue of any warrant for the collection of any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to any statute;

(2) For defendant in any execution or attachment to recover goods and chattels seized by virtue thereof unless such goods and chattels are exempt from the execution or attachment;

(3) By the original defendant in replevin for property taken in replevin and delivered to plaintiff while it remains in the possession of the original plaintiff or his or her agents.

(4) For any person unless that person has a right to reduce the goods taken into his or her possession.

History.—ss. 2, 3, Mar. 11, 1845; s. 4, ch. 1099, 1861; ch. 1938, 1873; ch. 2040, 1875; RS 1708; GS 2172; RGS 3477; CGL 5330; s. 28, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 73-20; s. 402, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 78.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 78.02 on CourtListener

Amendments to 78.02

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 78.02

Total Results: 11 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Williams Mgmt. Enter. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Cited 18 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1204, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8524

...o make the distress. Later, it was extended to any wrongful taking of personally and, now in Florida by statute, it lies for any wrongful taking or wrongful detention of any specific personal property. § 78.01, Fla. Stat. It is a possessory action (§ 78.02(4), Fla....

Copy

Brescher v. Assocs. Fin. Serv. Co., 460 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1874

...Accordingly, the Sheriff took possession of the vehicle. Before the execution sale could be held, however, Associates (the secured lienholder) filed a complaint for replevin. It alleged that the Guzzos had defaulted under the note, that they owed $3,760.80, that the provisions of section 78.02, Florida Statutes (1983), did not exempt the automobile from replevin, and that Associates was entitled to immediate possession....

...1973). Replevin, of course, is the classic legal mode for gaining possession of goods. See Honstein Trucking Co. v. Sandhills Beef, Inc., 209 Neb. 422, 308 N.W.2d 331 (1981); Midland-Guardian Co. v. Hagin, supra . Thus, it becomes significant that section 78.02, Florida Statutes (1983), which exempts certain property from replevin, does not preclude a secured party, who is a stranger to the pending execution sale, from seeking replevin against a sheriff....

Copy

State v. Moss, 194 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 1357710, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5248

its own docket. See generally, 88 C.J.S. Trial § 78 2 The document to which we have not made privy is

Copy

Am. E. Inv. Corp. v. Original Oliver, Inc., 549 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2198, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5089, 1989 WL 106995

to reduce the goods taken into his possession. § 78.02(4), Fla.Stat. (1987). I further acknowledge that

Copy

City of Miami Beach v. Millpin, Inc., 389 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bloch v. Frick, 12 So.2d 604 (Fla.1943); § 78.02 Fla.Stat....

Copy

Robinson v. Cinema Int'l, Ltd., 356 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15121

2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Nor do we construe § 78.02(3) to bar a counterclaim in a replevin action as

Copy

Andrew E. Roth v. Austin Russell (11th Cir. 2025).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: May 2, 2025

“irrespective” of intent), with 15 U.S.C. § 78(2)(b) (stating that liability only obtains to “knowing

Copy

Moresca v. Allstate Ins. Co., 231 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929

property is exempt from execution or attachment (Section 78.-02(2), F.S.1967, F.S.A.) or is claimed by some

Copy

Boynton v. Harbison, 135 So. 2d 234 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

...possession of the specific property sought to be recovered. See Bringley v. C. I. T. Corporation, 1935, 119 Fla. 529 at 537 , 160 So. 680; Richbourg et al. v. Rose, 1907, 53 Fla. 173 at 190 , 44 So. 69 ; Holliday v. McKinne, 1886, 22 Fla. 153 ; F.S. § 78.02(4), F.S.A....

Copy

Focht v. Heebner, 223 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2000).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2000 WL 1199213

the capital of the debtor.” Id. § 78///(2)(B). Case law has established that individuals

Copy

Sec. Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Inv. Corp., 173 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4502

of the property at the time suit was commenced. § 78.02(4) F.S., F.S.A. As our Supreme Court said: “[T]he

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.