Lee County Bank v. Winson

Citations: 444 So. 2d 459; 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 682; 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25347Docket: 82-2406

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 29, 1983; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Lee County Bank (appellant) appealing a verdict that awarded Errol B. Winson (appellee) both compensatory and punitive damages in a conversion action, with the appellee cross-appealing the striking of a nominal damages award. The court reversed the punitive damages and remanded the compensatory damages for recomputation. 

In April 1979, Winson approached bank loan officer Harwood for financing to purchase a car, claiming plans to move to the Florida Keys. Harwood denied this knowledge and facilitated a $1,500 loan secured by a broad security interest in Winson's property. Winson provided an address where he was temporarily living, but discrepancies arose regarding the correct address for the loan documents. After securing additional financing from installment loan officer Greene, issues with insurance arose as Winson's policy did not meet bank requirements, and he failed to notify the bank of his subsequent relocations after leaving for the Keys.

The bank attempted to communicate with Winson regarding the insurance and loan payments, but misdirected mail and lack of communication from Winson led to complications. Despite these issues, Winson's payment was confirmed as timely on May 8, 1979, shortly before the bank's inquiry about his whereabouts. The case highlights the complexities of loan agreements, communication failures, and the obligations of both parties under the terms of the loan.

Appellee contacted the bank to reach Harwood regarding an insurance issue, but was informed by a secretary that no one would return his call. Later that day, his car was repossessed from his workplace. Appellee subsequently spoke to Greene, who claimed the bank received the payment but deemed the insurance insufficient. Appellee asserted he had resolved the insurance issue, yet the bank maintained its position and refused to return the vehicle. The bank sent a letter on May 14, 1979, outlining the reasons for repossession, including incorrect personal details and lack of proper insurance, and stated the car could be redeemed within ten days upon full payment. On May 16, the bank received confirmation of the correct insurance, effective from May 8. Appellee's attorney demanded the car's return on May 25, asserting no default, but the bank sold the vehicle instead. Appellee sued for conversion, initially claiming the conversion occurred at repossession but later amended to assert it occurred when the bank refused to return the car. A jury awarded $2,500 in compensatory damages, $5,000 in nominal damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages. The trial judge later struck the nominal damages but upheld the other awards. The bank contended that the evidence did not support the compensatory damages, but the court found sufficient evidence indicating the bank wrongfully refused to return the car. Miscommunication due to incorrect address details on the security agreement and the timely acquisition of proper insurance were factors considered. The trial court acknowledged errors in jury instructions regarding the measure of damages, confirming the correct calculation involved the reasonable value of the vehicle at conversion, minus the bank's security interest. Furthermore, the court determined the appellee was entitled to damages under Florida Statutes section 679.507, which included specific financial calculations related to the debt.

The court determined that any error in the compensatory damages instruction was harmless, as the amount awarded did not exceed $2,500. Under section 679.507, damages are applicable when a debtor is in default and a creditor does not comply with Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The jury’s finding for the appellee implied that he was not in default, making the damages under section 679.507 unavailable, as there was no evidence of improper repossession by the bank. The appellee sought damages for credit reputation injury due to the automobile's conversion, but the court found no legal basis for compensating such injury through a conversion claim, as he had not pled a separate tort. 

On cross appeal, the appellee requested the reinstatement of nominal damages, arguing the jury intended a total of $27,500 in damages. However, the jury's confusion regarding nominal damages was evident, and the court could not accept the appellee’s argument to reinstate the $5,000 nominal damages. The court reversed the punitive damages award, stating that the bank's actions were based on a good faith assertion of its rights without malice or wrongful intent, thus not warranting punitive damages. The appellee had successfully proved conversion, but the compensatory damages awarded were to be recalculated based on agreed evidence regarding the vehicle's value and loan amounts. The case was reversed and remanded for the trial court to compute damages accordingly.