STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONOVAN GORDON AND DONNA GORDON, 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 held that the State's traverse raised material disputed facts regarding substantial compliance with statutory repair estimate requirements, precluding dismissal.
Appellees were charged with grand theft for taking their vehicle without paying for repairs. They moved to dismiss, arguing the auto shop failed to pr…
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 Substantial Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Appellees, Donovan and Donna Gordon, were charged by information with grand theft after allegedly removing their vehicle from the possession of an auto body shop without paying for repairs that had been made on the vehicle. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the information filed against them on the grounds that “[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant[s]” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). They alleged that the body shop had not complied with the provisions of section 559.905, Florida Statutes (2005), which requires an automobile repair shop to supply a written repair estimate to the customer which contains certain information as provided in the statute.
Appellant, the State of Florida, filed its traverse to the motion as provided in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(d) in which it denied certain facts asserted by appellees in their motion and cited to Lieberman v. Collision Specialists, Inc., 526 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In Lieber man, this court held that if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of section 559.905, a debt is incurred.
We find that the traverse raised evidence of substantial compliance and therefore material disputed facts. We reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand to reinstate the charges against appellees.
Reversed and Remanded.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Terma, 997 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…0), we conclude that the State’s traverse, specifically denying the material facts alleged by Ter-ma and alleging additional material facts, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Terma. See Gay, 960 So. 2d at 868-69; State v. Gordon, 942 So. 2d 1021, 1021-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Arnal, 941 So. 2d at 559; State v. Elliott, 941 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Horne, 399 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because material facts are disputed, “denial of the motion to dismiss is mandatory”…
Authorities Cited
- Myron Lieberman v. Collision Specialists, Inc., 526 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)