VIOREL CIOI

v.

DNP TRANSMISSION INC.

1 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” Lopez v. Hall, 233 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 2018). “We review the trial court’s factual findings for competent substantial evidence.” Aristizabal v. Pina, 273 So. 3d 1125, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). expected to exceed $150. § 559.905(1), Fla. Stat. Section 559.921(7), however, provides that if repairs and their costs were “in fact authorized, orally or in writing, the repairs were completed in a proper manner, and the consumer benefited therefrom,” the trial court may consider those factors in awarding the reasonable value of the repairs. § 559.921(7), Fla. Stat. “The text of the Repair Act neither says nor reasonably implies that a repair shop’s violation of the disclosure requirements at issue renders a subsequent repair invoice entirely void.” Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco Inc., 394 So. 3d 1115, 1120 (Fla. 2024). While section 559.905(1) requires a written estimate for repairs exceeding $150, section 559.921(7) allows the trial court to award the reasonable value of repairs if they were authorized, properly performed and beneficial to the consumer. The trial court expressly found these conditions satisfied here. Specifically, DNP’s representative testified at trial that Cioi expressly authorized the repairs and both parties agreed to a price that matched the amount ultimately billed upon completion. The trial court found this testimony credible. See Y.P. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 939 So. 2d 1118, 1119–20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Weighing the evidence is the province of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s credibility findings.”). Accordingly, we conclude the trial court correctly found that the repair shop is entitled to payment for the services rendered. See Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d at 1120-21 (“[N]otwithstanding a repair shop’s violation of the Repair Act, the Legislature has expressly allowed government enforcement entities to adjust penalties or damages if repairs were authorized and properly performed. . . . We need not and do not decide whether a bare disclosure violation causes ‘injury’ for purposes of the statute. Assuming a statutory violation has caused an injury, ‘the primary basis for an award of damages is compensation. That is, the objective is to make the injured party whole to the extent that it is possible to measure his injury in terms of money.’ To void a repair shop’s invoice after a bare statutory violation would go beyond statutorily authorized ‘damages’ and instead serve as a form of extra-statutory punishment.” (quoting Fisher v. City of Miami, 172 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 1965))). Affirmed.