ANGELA PEREZ-PRIEGO, APPELLANT,
v.
BAYSIDE CARBURETOR AND IGNITION CORPORATION, AND GEORGE TSAVIDES, REGISTERED AGENT, APPELLEES
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.
The court denied the petition for certiorari because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law, particularly due to the absence of a trial record.
Petitioner sued a repair shop under the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, alleging failure to provide a written estimate before performing repairs. Th…
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.
Petitioner seeks review in this court of a decision of the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity affirming an order of the county court denying petitioner’s claim for relief. We elect to treat this proceeding as a petition for certiorari.1 We deny the writ for failure to show any departure from the essential requirements of law. See Carrillo v. State, 466 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985).
Petitioner’s claim was brought under section 559.903, Florida Statutes (“The Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act”). She sought to recover the cost of repairs paid to Bayside Carburetor on the ground that the repair shop failed to submit to her a written estimate in advance of doing the repairs. Respondent apparently disputed that fact. The county court appears to have rejected petitioner’s' claim that she could retain the benefit of the repairs and still sue to recover their cost since she had, in fact, authorized the work.
Petitioner is correct that, under Florida law, a consumer who is not given a written estimate may recover the amount of the repair bill and still retain the benefit of the repairs. Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). However, in this case, there is no record of the trial below. This fact makes it impossible for us to determine that the lower court ruled in error since there may have been evidence proffered by respondent that it complied with the statute.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 609 So. 2d 516, 529 (Fla.1992); Committee Note to Rule 9.040.
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)…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, 325 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The customer in Osteen orally authorized work that t…
-
Safari Tours v. Pasco, 255 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…e’s requirement.3 3 That we have a record containing all evidence and exhibits proffered by the parties and considered by the jury (albeit with no trial transcript) distinguishes this case from Perez-Priego v. Bayside Carburetor and Ignition Corp., 633 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In Perez-Priego, the petitioner sought second-tier certiorari review from the district court after the circuit court appellate division affirmed a county court verdict in favor of a repair shop alleged to have performed repairs…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Glassco, Inc., 85 F.4th 1136 (11th Cir. 2023)…ourts have held that a repair shop that violates the Repair Act may not collect, even in quantum meruit. See Osteen, 481 So. 2d at 1289–90; Gonzalez, 483 So. 2d at 504; Sunrise, 547 So. 2d at 268; Perez-Priego v. Bayside Carburetor & Ignition Corp., 633 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); Safari Tours, 255 So. 3d at 417; see also FGAP Inv. Corp. v. A1 Body & Glass of Coral Springs, LLC, 325 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021). GEICO argues that its status as a non-customer does not alter the…
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)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 609 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1992)
- Carrillo v. State, 466 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)