Textron Financial Corp. v. Unique Marine, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
2008 WL 4716965 (2008)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Textron Financial Corp. (Textron) (plaintiff) and Unique Marine, Inc. (UM) (defendant) had a credit agreement under which Textron financed boats and boating equipment sold by UM. Under the credit agreement, Textron paid for UM’s inventory up front, and as UM sold each item of inventory to a customer, UM was required to pay Textron. After an inspection, Textron discovered that UM had sold six items of inventory totaling over $270,000 in value without reporting to or paying Textron as required under the credit agreement. If UM defaulted or breached the credit agreement, Textron was entitled to accelerate the entirety of UM’s unpaid debt. Textron accordingly demanded UM’s unpaid balance, or over $3.5 million. UM’s debt was secured by UM’s inventory of boats and boating equipment valued at about $3.1 million (the collateral). Textron sued UM in Florida district court, requesting ex parte prejudgment writs of replevin and related emergency break orders and a temporary restraining order to recover the collateral. Textron complied with Florida state law in requesting the writs, filed a verified complaint, provided an itemized listing of claimed property, and agreed to post a $6.3 million bond to support Textron’s requests. The matter came before a magistrate judge for recommendation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simonton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.