Need advice on winning a replevin claim?

[JusticeSeeker0]

Jurisdiction

Florida

In a nutshell, my ex-girlfriend acquired my old apartment through false claims to the courts, then on top of that, took all my possessions from the apartment when she left. I have receipts for most the possessions and the rest I have dozens of witnesses to verify that I had the possessions prior to her and I getting together. The fact that she never had a job for the 7 months we were together further supports that everything in the apartment was mine.

My ex-girlfriend has claimed to mutual friends that all my possessions (and my daughters - not from her) were all there when she left the apartment, although she was awarded the apartment and no one else resided there prior to her eviction. I also have a deputy and property manager to verify the apartment was locked up and all possessions were gone upon us entering the apartment for the eviction. I also have a police report filed about the incident. Oh, and there is staff from DCF that can verify the apartment was still fully furnished after I was unable to return to the apartment (on top of the property manager who was also aware). So to sum that up, I can prove the possessions were there after I left, that I was never able to return prior to her being evicted, and were gone after she was evicted.

My concern is that I have no concrete evidence showing she took those possessions, but at the same time, considering she was awarded the apartment and the staff at the complex was well aware she lived there until shortly after the eviction, the fact she took it all is fairly self-explanatory. I don't believe she has the possessions (unless she put them in a storage space), but am hoping to at least get back the depreciated monetary value of some of those possessions.

I have never done anything like this before, qualified for indigent status so I can at least try without losing money in the process, but really don't know how to best compile my case. Thanks to complications with all the old bills being in my name and having to get a new apartment, I don't have money for an attorney, so I would appreciate any advice any of you can give me as to what I can do to make the strongest case possible to hold her financially liable for those possessions of mine?

 

[army judge]

My concern is that I have no concrete evidence showing she took those possessions, but at the same time, considering she was awarded the apartment and the staff at the complex was well aware she lived there until shortly after the eviction, the fact she took it all is fairly self-explanatory. I don't believe she has the possessions (unless she put them in a storage space), but am hoping to at least get back the depreciated monetary value of some of those possessions.

Your third paragraph, posted above, answers your question.

You have no proof as to culprit alleged to have stolen your stuff.

There is no way, based upon your recitation of the events as you believe them to have evolved, that you can achieve the result you desire.

Mere proof of ownership, absent proof of the alleged thief's identity, is simply suspicion.

Courts and statutes are very clear, mere suspicion doesn't rise to the minimum legal threshold of reasonable suspicion to prosecute a crime.


That said, there's nothing you can do to prevail in a civil suit, where you have to prove by a preponderance of doubt. All you have is your mere suspicion, or supposition that X committed the burglary, and subsequent theft.

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is the obligation you (THE PLAINTIFF) have in a civil trial to produce a certain amount of evidence. Once the burden is met, then the outcome or conclusion of the trial favors the party who had the burden of proof and produced evidence satisfying that burden. The trier of fact (the jury in a jury trial and judge in a court trial) decides if the party carrying the burden succeeded in producing evidence satisfying that burden.

Preponderance of the evidence

In most civil cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. What this means is that the standard is met if there is greater than 50.1% chance that the something is true or that something happened.

We say this a slight tipping of the legal scale of Lady Justice. Another way of looking at this is to ask, is the proposition more likely to be true than not true?

Beyond a reasonable doubt

In a criminal case, a higher standard of proof is required. This is normally referred to as proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This burden is described as proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.

If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, then the level of proof has not been met.

This burden however does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

 

[adjusterjack]

I would appreciate any advice any of you can give me as to what I can do to make the strongest case possible to hold her financially liable for those possessions of mine?

All anybody can tell you is file it, serve it, bring all your documents to court and explain it the way you've explained it here. It's not rocket science and you don't have to come across like Perry Mason.

 

[ElleMD]

Back up. What do you mean she was awarded the apartment by the court? What court? Why were you in court? If she was granted the apartment by some legal authority, why was she evicted?

Her work status has nothing to do with the possession of personal property. Everything in the home does not become yours simply because you are collecting a paycheck.

 

[JusticeSeeker0]

Back up. What do you mean she was awarded the apartment by the court? What court? Why were you in court? If she was granted the apartment by some legal authority, why was she evicted?

Her work status has nothing to do with the possession of personal property. Everything in the home does not become yours simply because you are collecting a paycheck.

The local court awarded her the apartment in an injunction. It is a long story and outside the scope of issues directly related to the replevin. As far as her being granted the apartment, the court awarded her the apartment, but the complex's management fought to get me my apartment back considering they felt she had no right to it. The staff at the property as well as my attorney couldn't believe they gave her my apartment, but she lied in paperwork to acquire it and they did nothing in response to her lies. Even the state attorney's office now knows she has lied to them multiple times and even offered to assist me with any relevant documentation to assist my case, though I don't think there is much they can do as it would all just be ad hominem.

As far as everything in the home being mine, the fact that I lived there long before she did, she moved into my place with nothing more than clothes for her and her son along with some toys for her son, the 3-bedroom apartment was fully furnished by me, we were never married, she had no ability to buy anything due to having no income, and much much more, me collecting a paycheck has very little to do with it. I figure at the bare minimum, if they are going to say she is entitled to some of the possessions as well, then she would also have to share the debt along with it.

 

[JusticeSeeker0]

You have no proof as to culprit alleged to have stolen your stuff.

There is no way, based upon your recitation of the events as you believe them to have evolved, that you can achieve the result you desire.

Mere proof of ownership, absent proof of the alleged thief's identity, is simply suspicion.

While I appreciate the feedback and understand what you're saying, here is what I don't get as far as that...

Say I move into an apartment. Say when I move into the apartment, it is in great condition. A year later I move out and the apartment is trashed. When the staff attempt to inform me I owe money for damages, I say the apartment was fine when I moved out. Obviously, it's not hard to connect point A to point B and I think I would be hard-pressed to find a court that wouldn't hold me financially responsible for the damages made to the apartment.

I feel this situation is similar due to the following elements:
1) I have proof the possessions in the apartment were mine
2) I have documentation showing the courts awarded her my apartment on Oct 5th and that I could not return after that date.
3) I have proof I was not allowed to return there after that, but that all my possessions remained there after that (pictures, DCF staff, and property management/staff).
4) I have proof Hannah continued to reside at the apartment until shortly after being forced to leave by eviction.
5) I have proof that upon the sheriff entering the residence that was locked, virtually all possessions from the apartment were gone.
6) I have proof from the property manager that the majority of the possessions were there until at least a week prior to the eviction.
7) I have the property manager, sheriff, and a police officer (along with their incident report) verifying that all the possessions had been removed from the apartment.
8) The fact that my ex-girlfriend lived in the apartment until shortly after the eviction (which she already admitted) combined with the evidence the apartment was fully furnished until then makes it fairly self-evident as to what happened to the possessions.

I just feel that based on the evidence, if she does indeed lie to the court and claim she left everything at the apartment when she left, it's going to be obvious that due to her actions, she was responsible for the apartment and as such, the possessions left in the apartment. I could be wrong, but I just feel the evidence makes it so self-evident that the court should certainly hold her liable for my possessions.

I suppose most of it will depend on the judge and how willing they are to look at the evidence. You may very well be right, but I just honestly don't see how they could just let her get away with doing so.

 

[ElleMD]

Neither of you owns the apartment therefore possession can not be conferred to either of you. If there is a court order regarding property, it doesn't matter one whit what the property manager likes or dislikes. The time to address lies in court is during the trial or hearing, not after the fact. If your defense pointed out the lies and a judge found her more credible, that is different and while you may appeal the judgment, it changes nothing as far as the original case.

You mention an injunction which indicates there has already been a trial of some kind or one is pending. My guess is that this is a domestic violence situation and what you have is a temporary injunction or restraining order preventing you from being within some distance of her residence. If so, no, the judge did not give her your apartment. That was her residence and you must stay away from it. If rent wasn't paid, whomever lived there could be evicted. Sounds like you stopped paying rent on the place.

If these household goods and furniture were yours prior to the relationship, they remain yours unless you gifted them to someone else. Sounds like you don't know what happened to your stuff. If she took it, someone saw the eviction notice and stole it, or it was disposed of as part of the eviction.

If she has them, you can sue her for the value or to get them back if she still has them. Odds are, you are not going to be able to collect a dime if she isn't working and owns nothing of value.

 

[army judge]

While I appreciate the feedback and understand what you're saying, here is what I don't get as far as that...

Say I move into an apartment. Say when I move into the apartment, it is in great condition. A year later I move out and the apartment is trashed. When the staff attempt to inform me I owe money for damages, I say the apartment was fine when I moved out. Obviously, it's not hard to connect point A to point B and I think I would be hard-pressed to find a court that wouldn't hold me financially responsible for the damages made to the apartment.

I feel this situation is similar due to the following elements:
1) I have proof the possessions in the apartment were mine
2) I have documentation showing the courts awarded her my apartment on Oct 5th and that I could not return after that date.
3) I have proof I was not allowed to return there after that, but that all my possessions remained there after that (pictures, DCF staff, and property management/staff).
4) I have proof Hannah continued to reside at the apartment until shortly after being forced to leave by eviction.
5) I have proof that upon the sheriff entering the residence that was locked, virtually all possessions from the apartment were gone.
6) I have proof from the property manager that the majority of the possessions were there until at least a week prior to the eviction.
7) I have the property manager, sheriff, and a police officer (along with their incident report) verifying that all the possessions had been removed from the apartment.
8) The fact that my ex-girlfriend lived in the apartment until shortly after the eviction (which she already admitted) combined with the evidence the apartment was fully furnished until then makes it fairly self-evident as to what happened to the possessions.

I just feel that based on the evidence, if she does indeed lie to the court and claim she left everything at the apartment when she left, it's going to be obvious that due to her actions, she was responsible for the apartment and as such, the possessions left in the apartment. I could be wrong, but I just feel the evidence makes it so self-evident that the court should certainly hold her liable for my possessions.

I suppose most of it will depend on the judge and how willing they are to look at the evidence. You may very well be right, but I just honestly don't see how they could just let her get away with doing so.

Trying or pleading a case before a court is unlike anything most people have ever done.

You're seeking a writ of replevin.
Writs are very unique creatures of our legal system.

An eviction is akin to a junior writ of replevin.
There are many four legged critters on this planet.
A poodle and an elephant both have four legs, but bear little resemblance other than they both have tails.

You can't just walk into a higher level court of reord and tell a story as you would in small claims or landlord-tenant court.

You follow a codified set of civil procedures and civil trial practice procedures. Some leeway is given by the judge to a pro se litigant, but not much.

So, review my post and understand what you must prove for a writ of replevin to issue.

Now, I illustrated the various proofs, and left out the elements of the pleading, the proof, and the relief desired.

You can research all of that, but I'll bottom line it for you.

You had property.
Property was in an apartment that was in your name.
You had a roommate.
A dispute ensued, no doubt a domestic dispute, and the court issued an order of protection, or an injunction ordering you to vacate the apartment.

You never owned the apartment, and neither did the roomie.
You held a leasehold, but the restraining order trumped your lease.

The roomie stayed on.

At some point you were allowed to return to the unit.
She vacated the unit.

The stuff was there before you we're ordered out.
Upon your return, your stuff was gone.

You're alleging that if it was there when you left, she remained, as did the stuff, because it was gone when you returned she took it, destroyed, or otherwise caused its removal.

That logic might, some sort of tautology make, but it doesn't PROVE who caused your stuff to vanish, much less allow you to deduce she did it.

You won't get a writ of replevin to issue because you have no proof.

If a groundskeeper employed by the apartment complex observed a
U-Haul truck being loaded with furniture under the direction your roomie, that coud work, especially if he tailed the truck to 123 Main St in Newburgh, taking a video, calling the police who investigated the person's observations.

You have no proof.
You have only mere suspicion or supposition.


Replevin is a civil action to recover a piece of personal property that a person refuses to return to you. In a replevin action, you must prove a legal right to the possession of the property, such as ownership of it, and that the defendant has wrongful possession of the property.

All you know is it was there when you left.
When you returned the roomie and loot were gone.
You believe she has it, but unless you observed it in her possession, how can the court order her to return it?

I've watched this drama play out many times.
All she'll do is say, "Stuff? I don't know nothing about anyone's stuff but my own stuff. When I left the apartment, I took only my stuff and his stuff was still in there. I can't return what I never had, your honor. I don't know what happened to his stuff after I locked the apartment and left."


Now Florida has a very narrow use of the writ, take a look:


Chapter 78 Section 068 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

I wish I had better news, I really do.
But, you want truth not rumor, gossip, or smoke blown up your you know where.

You want knowledge that you can apply.

Good luck, mate.
I hope I've helped by laying out the truth.

 

[JusticeSeeker0]

Neither of you owns the apartment therefore possession can not be conferred to either of you. If there is a court order regarding property, it doesn't matter one whit what the property manager likes or dislikes. The time to address lies in court is during the trial or hearing, not after the fact. If your defense pointed out the lies and a judge found her more credible, that is different and while you may appeal the judgment, it changes nothing as far as the original case.

You mention an injunction which indicates there has already been a trial of some kind or one is pending. My guess is that this is a domestic violence situation and what you have is a temporary injunction or restraining order preventing you from being within some distance of her residence. If so, no, the judge did not give her your apartment. That was her residence and you must stay away from it. If rent wasn't paid, whomever lived there could be evicted. Sounds like you stopped paying rent on the place.

If these household goods and furniture were yours prior to the relationship, they remain yours unless you gifted them to someone else. Sounds like you don't know what happened to your stuff. If she took it, someone saw the eviction notice and stole it, or it was disposed of as part of the eviction.

If she has them, you can sue her for the value or to get them back if she still has them. Odds are, you are not going to be able to collect a dime if she isn't working and owns nothing of value.

Thank you for all the information. As far as the domestic violence situation, no charges were filed and it was all dropped. That is a huge part of what helps my case. I even have documentation from the state attorney's office with a signed letter from a supervisor there stating my ex-girlfriend has been caught in multiple lies and is non-credible as far as hearsay.

It's all a long story, but all that's left at this point is me seeing if I have any hope of retrieving anything from her in court. There is also a small claims suit I have filed for all the false allegations (libel, slander, etc.), of which I have supporting evidence from the local sheriff's office, local police department, state attorney's office (and 3 different state attorneys supporting the information), and the list goes on. That small claims suit also includes amounts for the rent and utilities I paid after I could no longer reside there and while she had.

As far as her having nothing of value, from my current understanding, she does have a job and a car now. It could be another lie on her part (told to mutual friends), but if not, then hopefully I can get some sort of justice here. I guess I will have to just see. Thanks again for the information.

 

[JusticeSeeker0]

Thank you "army judge" for all the information. Based on what you have stated, I'm thinking I am going to have to ask the local police department to conduct an investigation into the matter. I will have to have them talk to the neighbors to verify whether or not they ever saw any movers. I'm really at a loss as to how she could have removed it all without any of the neighbors seeing, so hopefully the police could find something.

The best I have as far as supporting evidence that it was there was the DCF investigator who met with her about a week before her eviction. He has verified with me that all possessions (TV, couch, entertainment center, etc.) were there still at that time. The other witness is the property manager, who also knew all those possessions were there and upon looking into the window of the apartment shortly before the eviction, noticed it had been cleared out right around the time when she left. You are correct that it does not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she took it, but it certainly doesn't look good for her either. Not sure how that evidence would fall as far as your statements, but I'm thinking that might be one that would fall on the judge. I know it isn't looking good for me based on what you wrote and I'll be sure to contact the police about it tomorrow.

I would think at the bare minimum, there should be some fault on her part in the form of negligence. Considering she refused to ever answer the door when the sheriff would knock (but would take his card each day off the door), considering she never let the staff know when she left, she knew very well what possessions in the apartment were mine, and she knew I was actively trying to retrieve them through court actions, I would think she should at least have some level of liability even if she plays stupid. I would also think that the police should have probable cause to visit her current residence and ask to come in to investigate. While I know she could just as easily turn them away and not let them in, that would at least show she has something to hide. Just trying to think of what I can do. I don't care about my stuff she took; I care about my daughter's possessions. I'm desperately trying to get back on my feet financially and it kills me that my daughter lost so much because of this woman. Thank you again for all your information - it has been very informative.

 

[JusticeSeeker0]

I just found out recently that she took at least some of my possessions to her new place. A friend of mine saw her on OkCupid and let me know and I saw a vase and fake flower set from the old apartment in the background. While it is only one minor thing from the old apartment, at least I have something to show that if she claims she took nothing from the apartment, I can prove it's a lie.

Based on that, I'm confident if they were to investigate her new home, they will probably find the majority of my possessions there, as I'm assuming she kept the possessions in a storage space while she lived at the shelter. However, I spoke with the local police and they refused to do any type of investigation beyond calling her. Since the officer found out her phone number was changed, they did nothing for me. Not sure what else I can do at this point, but figured I at least have proof now that she does have some of those possessions and that she has already lied about it.