HomeMy WebLinkAbout0063 ~'7~~''~~~ IN '1'HE CIVIL llIVISIUN UF
COUNIY COUFtT IN ANU FOR
SA ItdT I.UC IB COUN'lY , F GOR IllA ~
CASE NO. 73-380-SP-O1
I~AVIU J. RUPP an~1 SHLILA )
D. RUPP
Plaintiffs ) ,
-vs- )
LEB SWEET and ROBERT C. )
H ILL IARU
llefendants )
STATEMENT OF FACTS PREPa1tED BY COU~17Y JUDGE
WILLIr1M G. 1Y8
Plaintiff, owner of a 193? Hupmobile which was damaged in a fire~ delivered
the car to ROBERT C. HILLIARU to be restored, The seatst Were taken to Kelly's
Upholstry Shop. Defendant, ROBBR'T C. HILLIARll, dismantled the fenders a~d painted
with primer, portions of the automobile. A considerable period of time past.
The plaintiff, stated that While he was in Europe the repairman, ROBERT C. HILLIARD,
attempted proceedings against the car for his service.
RUPP never had notice of a public sale by Defendant HILLIARD. Defendant
E LEE SbJEET testified that he kneW the plaintiff had purchased the car from a
k
~ man by the name of Brikle. He further testified that he knew Plaintiff itUPP
~
6 had taken the car to be repaired by HILLIAltll. Defendant SWEET testified that
he purchased the car~from HILLIARll knowing Hilliard's Garage had not lperfected
~ his lien ncr had title to said car. llefendant SWEET attempted sale proceedings -
~
~ ~
' exhibit 7 through 11. He testified he was never authorized to store the vehicle
~ ~
~ by Plaintiff RUPP. He further testified that on several occasions he had asked
~ Plaintiff RUPP to sell the car to him, llefendant SWEET knew plaintiff RUPP had
~ purchased many antique automobiles in the past and knew the Hupmobile was
~
~ delivered to Defendant HILLIARll, noti+ deceased, for repairs. ~e knew that llefendant
3 HII.LIAItD had attempted to get a mechanics lien and he did not see HILLIARll aign
~
~y~ defendant's exhibit ~k3. He did not see ROBERT C. HILLIA~til prepare bill #2074,
~ ~ defendant's exhibit for the work he had done, llefendant SWLET never testified
"j - that he paid any monetary consideration to Defendant HILLIARD for the car.
~ The Court found, as a matter of fact, mechanic~s lien had not been perfected;
that there was never any notice for the first sale~given Plaintiff RUPP under
' Florida Statute 85.031(3). The Court further found that there was never any
privity of contract for storage between Plaintiff RUPP and Defendant SWEET.
3
: - ~ eacE ~
~~:~t
~ - _ -
~