NORA GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
TREMONT BODY AND TOWING, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed judgment for repair shop and remanded for damages where shop failed to comply with written repair estimate requirements under the Motor Vehicle Repair Act and unlawfully retained customer's vehicle.
A repair shop cannot recover on a quantum meruit basis when it violates the Motor Vehicle Repair Act's written estimate requirements and unlawfully retains a customer's vehicle.
[1] A motor vehicle repair shop that violates the written repair estimate requirements of the Motor Vehicle Repair Act and unlawfully retains a customer's vehicle is not enti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez took her vehicle to Tremont Body and Towing for repairs. The shop failed to comply with written repair estimate requirements under the Motor …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On the authority of the well-considered decision in Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986),1 we reverse the judgment awarded the appellee automobile repair shop on a quantum meru-it basis notwithstanding its admitted failure to conform with the written repair estimate requirements contained in section 559.905 of the Motor Vehicle Repair Act, §§ 559.901, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1983). The cause is remanded for determination of the damages sustained by the appellant customer as a result of the shop’s failure to return her vehicle because of her well-justified refusal to pay, § 559.909(5);2 see Lucas Truck Service Co. v. Hargrove, 443 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and of the costs and attorney’s fees to which, as the prevailing party, she is entitled under section 559.923(1).3
Reversed, remanded with directions.
. Osteen was of course decided after the proceedings below.
. This subsection states:
It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle repair shop to fail to return any customer’s motor vehicle because the customer has refused to pay for unauthorized repairs....
.This subsection states:
Any customer injured by a violation of §§ 559.901-559.923 may bring an action in the appropriate court for relief. The prevailing party in that action may be entitled to damages plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco Inc., 394 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 2024)…ding penalty hinges almost entirely on the authority of Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and on subsequent district court of appeal decisions that followed Osteen's reasoning. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Tremont Body & Towing, Inc., 483 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); 1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. v. A-Leet Leasing of Fla., 547 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Perez-Priego v. Bayside Carburetor & Ignition Corp., 633 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Safari Tours, Inc. v. Pasco, 255 So. 3d 415 (Fla.…
-
Fgap Inv. Corp v. A1 Body & Glass of Coral Springs, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…when it failed to provide the customer with a written estimate or obtain a signed waiver from the customer, and that the trial court did not err when it denied the repair shop’s claim of quantum meruit); Gonzalez v. Tremont Body & Towing, Inc., 483 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing a quantum meruit award when the repair shop failed to provide a written repair estimate pursuant to section 559.905). Summary judgment was not appropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact a…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco, Inc., 85 F.4th 1136 (11th Cir. 2023)…er such claims fraudulent or unlawful." The district court also concluded that the Florida decisions cited by GEICO were not on point. See, e.g., Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986), Gonzalez v. Tremont Body & Towing, Inc., 483 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986), and Safari Tours, Inc. v. Pasco, 255 So. 3d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). In the district court's view, these Florida decisions were distinguishable because "in each of these decisions, the customer refused to pay for r…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prestige Vending, Inc. v. TRS Props., Inc., 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lucas Truck Serv. Co. v. Hargrove, 443 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)