Associate Attorney
In Belvant v. Cohen, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D 2503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the appellate court clarified two practical points about replevin: (1) replevin is primarily about the right to immediate possession, and (2) co-ownership does not automatically make another co-owner an indispensable party when the replevin target is a third party.
This case involved a taxi decal co-owned by two individuals. One co-owner operated as a taxi driver; the other did not. Together they entered an agreement with third-party companies who possessed and used the decal for a term. When the term ended, the companies failed to return the decal.
One co-owner filed a petition for a prejudgment writ of replevin against the companies to recover possession. He also brought claims against the other co-owner (including civil theft-type allegations), but the replevin request itself was directed at the third-party companies holding the decal.
The non-filing co-owner moved to dismiss and obtained an attorney’s fee award on the theory that he was an indispensable party who had to be joined as a co-plaintiff in the replevin action. The trial court agreed. However, the appellate court did not.
The appellate court held that Florida law does not require all co-owners of the property to be joined in a replevin action brought against third parties. Because replevin is designed to resolve who is entitled to immediate possession as between the plaintiff and the party wrongfully holding the property, a co-owner is not automatically indispensable just because he also has an ownership interest.
The court also highlighted an adjacent rule: replevin generally is not appropriate against another owner who is legally entitled to possession because the possession element must be “wrongful.” If a party has lawful co-ownership rights and lawful entitlement to possess the property, that possession is not inherently wrongful in the way replevin requires.
The primary takeaway is to distinguish the target from the legal theory. If the property is held by a third party and the relief sought is immediate return, replevin can proceed without dragging in every co-owner as a party. It is also important not to mislabel a co-owner dispute as replevin. If the dispute is between rightful owners over competing rights to possess, replevin may fail because the possession may not be “wrongful.” Where an asset is being withheld after the end of a contract term, replevin can be an efficient tool if you focus on possession and wrongful detention.
Possession remedies like replevin can move quickly, but only if the right parties and the right theory are identified. At Boatman Ricci, we help clients choose the cleanest procedural path to recover property without creating avoidable joinder and fee problems.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.