TIMOTHY C. SHEEHAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, 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.
The Sheehans appealed a circuit court decision that reversed an arbitration board's ruling requiring Winnebago to repurchase their defective recreational vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by requiring the Sheehans to bear the burden of proof and by failing to afford the arbitration board's decision a presumption of validity.
The trial court erred by requiring the Sheehans to bear the burden of proof and by failing to give the arbitration board's decision a presumption of validity. Once a consumer succeeds before the arbitration board, the manufacturer must carry the burden of proof in appealing to the circuit court, and the trial court must grant the board's decision a presumption of validity.
[1] In a trial de novo appeal of a Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board decision, the appealing party bears the burden of proof.
[2] A circuit court reviewing a Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board decision must afford the Board's decision a presumption of validity.
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“once the consumer was successful in front of the board, the manufacturer was required to carry the burden of proof in the appeal to the circuit court”
Establishes the proper burden of proof allocation when a manufacturer appeals an adverse arbitration board decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheehans purchased a $30,000 Winnebago recreational vehicle and made unsuccessful attempts to repair it. They proceeded to arbitration before the …
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 Trial De Novo cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
The Sheehans appeal the circuit court’s order reversing the Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board’s (the Board) decision in an action brought under the Florida Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act.1 The suit stems from the Sheehans’ dissatisfaction with their $30,000 Winnebago recreational vehicle. We reverse.2
After a number of unsuccessful attempts to repair the recreational vehicle, the Sheehans and Winnebago proceeded to arbitration before the Board pursuant to section 681.1095, Florida Statutes (1991). The Board entered a decision in favor of the Sheehans which required Winnebago to repurchase the vehicle. Winnebago appealed the Board’s decision to the circuit court pursuant to section 681.1095(13) which calls for a trial de novo.
At the beginning of the trial, the trial court addressed the proper allocation of the burden of proof, although it failed to clearly resolve the issue. It did, however, require the Sheehans to proceed first. No presumption of correctness was afforded the Board’s decision. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conclusion that the vehicle’s use, safety, or value had been substantially impaired by the asserted defects and rendered a decision in favor of Winnebago. The Shee-hans contend, and we agree, that the trial court erred in requiring that they bear the burden of proof and in failing to give the Board’s decision a presumption of correctness.
Section 681.1095(11) enables a party to appeal a decision of the Board to the circuit court, and section 681.1095(13) explains that the circuit court’s review shall be by trial de novo. By requiring a party to “appeal” the Board’s decision and at the same time requiring the appeal to be de novo, the legislature created an ambiguity in the statute. Never theless, this court clarified the ambiguity in Mason v. Porsche Cars of North America, 621 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 629 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1993). In Mason, a consumer brought suit under Florida’s lemon laws against the manufacturer of his automobile. At arbitration, the Board ruled in favor of the consumer and the manufacturer appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo. When the trial court ruled that the consumer was required to shoulder the burden of proof at the circuit court level, the consumer sought a writ of certiorari from this court. This court held that once the consumer was successful in front of the board, the manufacturer was required to carry the burden of proof in the appeal to the circuit court. This district has clearly established that the manufacturer must carry the burden of proof at the circuit court level when appealing an adverse decision of the Board.3 Further, the trial court is to grant the Board’s decision a presumption of validity. Mason.
Here, the trial court erred by failing to require Winnebago to carry the burden of proof and by not affording the Board’s decision a presumption of validity. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Chapter 681, Florida Statutes (1991).
. Our decision on the merits of the main appeal renders moot the issue raised by Winnebago in its cross-appeal.
. The trial court did not have the benefit of Mason at the time it ruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chrysler Corp. v. Spiro Pitsirelos, 721 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1998)
-
Christopher C. Mason, D.P.M., P.A. v. Porsche Cars OF N. Am., Inc., 688 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…dmission by Porsche of substantial competent evidence that Mason’s car was not a lemon. The attorney general once again entered the case and argued, along with Mason, .that this court’s decisions in Mason I and Sheehan v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 635 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), burdened Porsche with having to disprove the correctness of the Board’s decision by a preponderance of the evidence, equating the “presumption of validity” referred to in those decisions with the burden-of-proof-shifting presump…1 / 2
-
Aguiar v. Ford Motor Co., 683 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…f the compulsory arbitration process would be minimized if the simple filing of a petition could force the successful party in arbitration to seek affirmative relief in the circuit court. Mason, 621 So. 2d at 721; Sheehan v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 635 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Certiorari is granted and the trial court’s order is quashed. On remand, we direct the trial court to enter an order consistent with this opinion granting the consumer’s petition ■ for clarification of the burden of proof stati…
Authorities Cited
- Mason v. Porsche Cars OF N. Am., 621 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)