From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Forfeiture of One 1946 Lockheed

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 10, 1986
493 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

In Lockheed the court held that one claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value could not contest the forfeiture of an airplane because his instrument of title was not recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator as required by section 329.01, Florida Statutes (1985).

Summary of this case from Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, Inc.

Opinion

No. 85-2686.

July 11, 1986. Rehearing Denied September 10, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, Ray E. Ulmer, J.

John S. Matthews, Tampa, for appellant.

Charles D. Waller, Dade City, for appellee.


Appellee, City of Zephyrhills, filed suit to forfeit one 1946 Lockheed L-18 Loadstar, Right 1820-A105A engines, visible ID # N43WT, which allegedly was used in drug activities. After hearing testimony of the record title owner of the aircraft, appellant, and law enforcement officers involved in investigations concerning the drug activities in which the aircraft was allegedly used, the trial court ordered the aircraft forfeited.

Appellant, John S. Matthews, alleges that ownership of the aircraft was transferred to him by a bill of sale several months prior to the forfeiture action. He contends that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and the record title holder of the aircraft and that the aircraft is not subject to forfeiture under chapter 932, Florida Statutes (1985), since he had no knowledge of the criminal activities in which the aircraft was allegedly used.

We do not agree that appellant is the record title holder of the aircraft. Florida Statutes provide that no instrument which affects the title to an aircraft is valid until such instrument is recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator. § 329.01, Fla. Stat. (1985). Since the bill of sale had not been recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator of the United States and record title was still in the original owner, appellant is not the owner of the aircraft within the meaning of the forfeiture statute and his interest is not subject to the protection of section 932.703(2), Florida Statutes (1985).

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.


Summaries of

In re Forfeiture of One 1946 Lockheed

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 10, 1986
493 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

In Lockheed the court held that one claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value could not contest the forfeiture of an airplane because his instrument of title was not recorded in the office of the Federal Aviation Administrator as required by section 329.01, Florida Statutes (1985).

Summary of this case from Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, Inc.
Case details for

In re Forfeiture of One 1946 Lockheed

Case Details

Full title:IN RE FORFEITURE OF ONE 1946 LOCKHEED L-18 LOADSTAR, RIGHT 1820-A105A…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 10, 1986

Citations

493 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wheels Unlimited, Inc. v. Lamar

703(3), Florida Statutes, relating to the holder of a lien interest against property the subject of a…

Lamar v. Wheels Unlimited, Inc.

GRIMES, Justice. We review the decision in Wheels Unlimited, Inc. v. Lamar, 492 So.2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA…