1616 SUNRISE MOTORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
A-LEET LEASING OF FLORIDA, 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.
A repair shop appealed the denial of its repair and storage lien against a leased automobile. The court affirmed, holding that the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act's requirement for written or oral authorization from the lessee-customer cannot be circumvented by seeking recovery against the owner-lessor instead.
The court held that the requirements of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act cannot be avoided by seeking recovery against an owner-lessor who may not qualify as a "customer" under the statutory definition. The lessee was the relevant customer, and the repair transaction was covered by the Act's authorization requirement.
[1] A motor vehicle repair shop cannot recover for repairs made without written or oral authorization from the customer, as required by the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act.
[2] The Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act's requirement for customer authorization of repairs cannot be circumvented by allowing a repair shop to recover from an owner-lessor…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under the statute a customer is defined as someone who uses an automobile for personal use, or in connection with a business owning or operating fewer than five vehicles.”
Establishes the statutory definition of "customer" under the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA-Leet Leasing purchased an automobile from Sunrise Motors and leased it to John Sturtsman. In April 1985, the vehicle was in an accident and towed to…
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 Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment denying the claim of appellant, 1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc., for a repair and storage lien against an automobile owned by the appellee, A-Leet Leasing of Florida. We affirm.
A-Leet purchased an automobile from Sunrise Motors in January of 1985 and in turn leased the automobile to an individual lessee, John Sturtsman.
In April of 1985 the automobile was in an accident and towed to appellant’s premises. Sunrise repaired the automobile and when Sturtsman failed to respond to requests to pick the ear up and pay for the repairs, sent A-Leet a notice that the vehicle was to be sold’to pay for the repair bill. A-Leet filed a bond pursuant to the provisions of section 559.-917, Florida Statutes (1987), also known as the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, and secured release of the vehicle. Subsequently, Sunrise filed a claim against the bond for the repairs and storage charges on the vehicle.
At trial the court found that Sunrise had received no written or oral authorization for repairs to the vehicle from the lessee Sturtsman, as required by the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, and denied recovery on the authority of Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).1
On appeal, Sunrise claims that although the lessee-customer may not be held liable for the repairs, the lien can nevertheless be enforced against A-Leet because A-Leet does not meet the statutory definition of a customer.
We disagree.
Under the statute a customer is defined as someone who uses an automobile for personal use, or in connection with a business owning or operating fewer than five vehicles.
The trial court held that Sturtsman was the customer contemplated by the statute, and that the repairs in question were covered by the statute’s express requirement of repair authorization.
We agree with the trial court that, under the circumstances of this case, the requirements of the Act cannot be avoided by permitting recovery by the errant repair shop against an owner-lessor who may not be a “customer” within the definition portion of the Act. The repair transaction involved herein is one that is covered by the Act. A holding to the contrary would undermine the purposes of the Act. See Osteen, supra.
We find no merit to the other issues raised on appeal.
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. . Osteen held that written authorization pursuant to the statute must be received before a repair company can claim a lien or otherwise recover for the repairs.
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)…7 (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. 3d DCA 2018); FGAP Inv. Corp. v. Α1 ---PAGE 14--- Body & Glass of Coral Springs, LLC,…
-
Am. Atl. Transmission v. Nice CAR, Inc., 112 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…er v. Gebhart, 825 So. 2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Singer v. Tobin, 201 So. 2d 799, 800-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)).1 Nice Car and the Dealers Association also argue that our holding in 1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. v. A-Leet Leasing of Florida, 547 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), supports the very interpretation they would have us give to the definition of the term “customer” in interpreting section 559.917. We find Sunrise Motors to be of no precedential value. In that case, A-Leet was the owner of the…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco, Inc., 85 F.4th 1136 (11th Cir. 2023)…where no one met the strict statutory definition of a “customer”—the district court construed the Repair Act in a way that undermines its remedial purpose. GEICO also relies on the decision in 1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. v. A-Leet Leasing of Florida, 547 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). Sunrise involved a § 559.919 lien under the Repair Act. At the time, § 559.919 provided that a repair shop may not “refuse to return a customer's motor vehicle by virtue of any miscellaneous lien, nor may it enforce such…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)