The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, Florida's "lemon law."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took delivery of the motor vehicle at issue on December 31, 1996, at which time she received information on the requirements of Florida's "lemon law." Petitioner began to have trouble with the vehicle almost immediately. She notified the dealer that there was a serious problem, and Palm Kia in Ocala, Florida, performed some repairs. The Ocala dealer's repair shop did not inform her that the problem was a computer failure. Sometime during the next 18 months, there was a second period during which the car was in some repair shop. Petitioner first contacted the Department on January 8, 1999, by telephone. She was informed that the statutory time period for requesting arbitration under Florida's "lemon law" had expired, and the suggestion was made that she try contacting the Better Business Bureau. Petitioner testified that she would have filed a request for arbitration with the Department in January 1999, if the Department had not referred her to the Better Business Bureau. Petitioner signed her first and only written request for arbitration on February 2, 1999. This written request for arbitration by the Board was received by the Department on February 11, 1999. In her written arbitration request, Petitioner indicated that her vehicle had reached 24,000 miles "around the end" of 1997. However, at formal hearing, Petitioner confirmed that on January 19, 1998, the mileage on her vehicle was 32,763. In her written arbitration request, Petitioner did not provide proof that she had provided written notice of the alleged defect to the manufacturer, Kia Motors, within the "lemon law" rights period. Petitioner testified that sometime in the 18-month period specified by Florida's "lemon law" she had telephoned the manufacturer to complain about her car. However, Petitioner also testified that she did not notify the manufacturer by certified letter of the nonconformity until October 1998. Petitioner testified that on December 28, 1998, Gatorland Toyota in Gainesville, Florida, requested that the motor vehicle be towed to them. The motor vehicle had been towed the previous day, Sunday, December 27, 1998, to Billy Shell's Garage because Kia was closed and the motor vehicle could not be locked away. The motor vehicle was not diagnosed by Gatorland Toyota as having a computer problem until the first part of January 1999. Petitioner took possession of her vehicle in January 1999. At that time, she notified the dealer by telephone that the engine light was on. The car has continued to have difficulties.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order upholding the February 25, 1999 denial of Petitioner's request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board pursuant to Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, should be denied on the ground that the request was not timely filed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department")?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner purchased the motor vehicle that is the subject of the instant controversy, a 1991 Mitsubishi Eclipse, on May 23, 1991, from King Mitsubishi, a Mitsubishi dealership located in Lighthouse Point, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealership"). Various problems developed with the vehicle which Petitioner reported to the Dealership, but the Dealership was unable to rectify within 18 months of the date of purchase. During this 18-month time frame Petitioner drove the vehicle less than 24,000 miles. Several of the problems that Petitioner reported during the first 18 months of her ownership of the vehicle still persist today. In June or July of 1993, Petitioner began considering the possibility of seeking arbitration under the State of Florida's "Lemon Law." To find out more about her rights, she obtained from a friend, and reviewed, a Florida state government publication on the "Lemon Law." In September of 1993, Petitioner sent a completed Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form to the Dealership requesting that it "make a final attempt to correct the . . . reported . . defects." On November 12, 1993, Petitioner brought the vehicle to the Dealership for such repairs to be made. When she picked up the vehicle five days later, she discovered that the defects she had reported had not been remedied. Dissatisfied with these results, Petitioner telephoned the Department and asked to be sent a Request for Arbitration form. She received the form on November 29, 1993. Petitioner then proceeded to gather the documentation that she needed to fill out the form. After gathering this documentation, Petitioner telephoned the Department a second time because she had some questions regarding certain items on the form. Her questions having been answered by the Department representative to whom she spoke, Petitioner completed the form and, on December 2, 1993, mailed the completed form to the Department. The Department received the completed form on December 6, 1993. At no time did Petitioner, a layperson acting without the benefit of legal counsel, ever intend to forfeit her right to request arbitration under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. She was not under the impression, nor did the Department representatives to whom she spoke give her reason to believe, that if she failed to file her request for arbitration on or before November 23, 1993, her inaction would be deemed a waiver of her right to request arbitration under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Petitioner's request for arbitration to have been timely filed and therefore not subject to dismissal on the ground of untimely filing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of May, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0755 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of facts" proposed by the parties in their post-hearing submittals: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order.. Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 4-5. Rejected as findings of fact because they are more in the nature of conclusions of law. 6-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of evidence adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such evidence. First sentence: Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony adduced at hearing than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. The Department's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted and incorporated in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Feldman, Esquire Berman & Feldman 2424 Northeast 22nd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33062-3099 Barbara Edwards, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Danielle Manfredo (Manfredo), purchased a 1992 Mitsubishi Eclipse from Leheman Mitsubishi in Miami, Florida, on November 5, 1992, and took possession of the vehicle on the same date. When Manfredo purchased the automobile she was given an owner's manual for a 1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse. She did not receive a brochure concerning the Florida Lemon Law nor was she provided any information by the car dealer concerning her rights under the Florida Lemon Law. In January, 1993, Manfredo began experiencing problems with the vehicle and continued experiencing problems into 1995. The two primary problems dealt with the transmission and the car pulling to the right. Manfredo continued to take the car in for repairs. In August, 1995, Manfredo obtained a Lemon Law form from her future mother-in-law. On August 25, 1995, Manfredo sent a Motor Vehicle Notification to the manufacturer and to the Attorney General. Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Division of Consumer Affairs (Department) is the state agency charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate Requests for Arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board for referral to the Attorney General for further processing and action. On September 27, 1995, Manfredo called the Department to get an application for arbitration. On October 17, 1995, she filed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. By letter dated November 8, 1995, the Department denied Manfredo's request for arbitration, stating that the request was not timely. The latest possible date Manfredo could have filed a request for arbitration was May 5, 1995. Manfredo's request for arbitration was not timely filed. The Vehicle Defect Notification and the Request for Arbitration are not the same document and do not serve the same purpose. Mitsubishi does not have a state-certified manufacturer procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Danielle Manfredo's request for arbitration. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-192 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. No proposed recommended order was filed. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Paragraphs 1-12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Danielle Manfredo 1412 Southwest 129th Court Miami, Florida 33184 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration on his claim under the Florida Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Naples, Florida. He has resided in Naples since December 1992. Petitioner formerly resided in the New York City area. When he became interested in purchasing a new automobile, Petitioner contacted a friend of his son. The friend worked at North Shore Oldsmobile in Flushing, New York. Petitioner soon entered into negotiations with a sales representative of the Flushing dealership for the purchase of a new 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cierra. Petitioner conducted these negotiations, which took place in April 1993, exclusively by telephone with Petitioner in Naples and the sales representative at the dealership in New York. Petitioner wanted a stationwagon, and the dealership had one car of this type in stock. It was the right color and had most of the options that Petitioner wanted. After a week or ten days of negotiating the price over the telephone, Petitioner, satisfied with the price, agreed to purchase the car, and North Shore Oldsmobile agreed to sell the car. Petitioner and representatives of the dealership then discussed by telephone financing arrangements. After they finished working out the details, Petitioner agreed to come to Flushing, New York to pick up the car. They agreed that Petitioner would take delivery of the car on May 3, 1993. Prior to Petitioner's departure, North Shore Oldsmobile sent him by mail in Naples various papers that Petitioner needed to complete prior to taking delivery. A North Shore Oldsmobile representative informed Petitioner that he was required to obtain insurance and sent him sufficient information so that he could obtain insurance in Florida prior to traveling to New York to get the car. North Shore Oldsmobile also sent Petitioner a copy of the retail instalment sales contract. Petitioner and some friends drove to New York, and, on the appointed day, Petitioner visited North Shore Oldsmobile in Flushing and either signed the closing papers at the dealership or delivered already-signed closing papers to the dealership. Petitioner also paid the necessary amounts to North Shore Oldsmobile at the dealership. North Shore Oldsmobile did not charge Petitioner any New York sales tax, but disclosed the amount of Florida use tax that Petitioner would be required to pay on registering the new car in Florida. Petitioner then took possession of the automobile, which he claims did not satisfactorily operate on the trip back to Florida or thereafter. Upon his return to Florida, Petitioner registered the new car in Florida and paid the Florida use tax, as well as title, tag, and registration fees imposed under Florida law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's request for arbitration under the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act. ENTERED on May 22, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 22, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Carmine Cavaseno 2722 Fountain View Circle Apartment Number 104 Naples, Florida 33942 Attorney Rhonda Long Bass Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioners' request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate customer complaints and requests for arbitration in disputes with automobile manufacturers and dealers doing business in the state of Florida. Respondent's duty includes determining whether a request for arbitration qualifies under Section 681.109, Florida Statutes, for referral to the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. Petitioners took delivery of a new Ford motor vehicle on February 3, 1992. Thereafter, Petitioners began having problems with the automobile's engine, windshield wipers, driver's window and power steering. Petitioners reported these problems to the authorized service agent for the first time on or about January 13, 1993. The mileage on the automobile was approximately 11,000 miles at that time. The authorized dealer attempted to repair the subject motor vehicle on January 13, 1993, February 9, 1993, and December 1, 1993. In January of 1994, the automobile had been operated for 24,000 miles. The authorized dealer again attempted to repair the subject vehicle on March 9, 1994. Petitioners completed a Vehicle Defect Notification on August 15, 1994. The purpose of this notice was to inform the manufacturer of the unsuccessful repair attempts. Ford Motor Company received this notice on August 18, 1994. The mileage on the automobile at that time was 29,569 miles. On August 23, 1994, the authorized dealer made a final attempt to repair the subject automobile. At all times material to this proceeding, Ford Motor Company participated in a state certified dispute settlement program. On October 5, 1994, Petitioners completed a Dispute Settlement Board Application. The Dispute Settlement Board received Petitioners' application on October 17, 1994. Petitioners took their automobile to the authorized dealer on October 27, 1994, because the engine light was on. The Dispute Settlement Board considered Petitioners' case on November 17, 1994. By letter dated November 19, 1994, the Dispute Settlement Board notified Petitioners that Ford Motor Company would repair the automobile's window and windshield wipers with no expense to Petitioners. The Dispute Settlement Board also informed Petitioners that Ford Motor Company would not be required to repair the engine, speaker, and rear view mirror concerns because, according company and authorized dealer reports dated October 31, 1994, those problems were resolved. On December 17, 1994, Petitioners completed a Request for Arbitration form. Respondent received this request on December 22, 1994. Respondent's letter of January 23, 1995, informed Petitioners that their arbitration application was not properly documented concerning the vehicle finance agreement. Respondent directed Petitioners to re-file their application with the proper documentation. Respondent also advised Petitioners that the application might be rejected as untimely. On or before February 3, 1995, Petitioners re-submitted their arbitration application. Respondent rejected Petitioners' arbitration application as untimely. Subsequently, Petitioners filed a request for an administrative hearing to contest the denial of their application. Upon receipt of Petitioners' request for administrative hearing, Respondent reviewed Petitioners' file again. After this review, Respondent sent Petitioners a May 25, 1994, letter which erroneously determined that Petitioners' request for arbitration was eligible for referral to the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. This letter correctly determined that the subject vehicle reached 24,000 after January 1, 1994. However, it incorrectly determined that the Lemon Law rights period had been extended to January 1, 1995. By letter dated June 8, 1995, Respondent corrected its erroneous decision, withdrew the letter of May 25, 1995, and reinstated the letter of February 3, 1995. The initial Lemon Law rights period expired on August 3, 1993, eighteen (18) months after the date of delivery of the subject motor vehicle. Therefore it is irrelevant that the car did not accumulate 24,000 miles until January of 1994. Respondent correctly extended the initial Lemon Law rights period for six (6) months, until February 3, 1994, because: (1) Petitioners notified the authorized dealer about the automobile's nonconformance with warranty within the initial Lemon Law rights period; and (2) The authorized dealer did not cure the defects within the initial Lemon Law rights period. In order to be eligible for arbitration, Petitioners had to file their claim with the certified dispute settlement board within six (6) months of the expiration of the extended Lemon Law rights period which, in this case, was August 3, 1994. Petitioners were not entitled to file their request for arbitration within thirty (30) days after final action of the certified dispute settlement procedure because they did not even start that procedure until the time to file a request for arbitration had expired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioners' Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board on grounds that the request was not timely. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE HOOD, HEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-4772 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11 are accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 1-20 of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED Carlton and Patricia Jones 804 Pheasant Court West Jacksonville, FL 32259 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner’s request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the Florida Department of Agriculture And Consumer Services, Division of Consumer Services. Respondent administers the “Motor Vehicle Enforcement Warranty” set forth in Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, inclusive of the Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board. Petitioner is a consumer who took delivery of the then new motor vehicle at issue on December 8, 1995. He received no information from the dealership where he purchased the vehicle concerning his rights to access to Respondent’s arbitration program. On June 1, 1998, Respondent received Petitioner’s request for arbitration. Petitioner’s vehicle had 24,000 miles on it at that time. Petitioner’s arbitration request disclosed vehicle problems requiring at least three repair attempts. Petitioner’s request failed to provide a copy of any written defect notification, or other written notification to the manufacturer of the vehicle. In his arbitration application and later at the final hearing, Petitioner maintained that he had provided the manufacturer with such written notification. However, despite Respondent’s repeated request of Petitioner to provide Respondent with copies of that notification, Petitioner failed to provide any such documentation. The fourth notice by Respondent to Petitioner informed him that a copy of such notification must be received by Respondent no later than August 3, 1998. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with a copy of the manufacturer notification by the deadline of August 3, 1998. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner that his request for arbitration was denied as ineligible. At the final hearing, the testimony of Respondent’s spokesman, James D. Morrison, established that Petitioner’s failure to provide Respondent with a copy of the Motor Vehicle Defect Information form sent to the manufacturer by Petitioner was the sole reason that Petitioner’s application for arbitration was denied. As further established by Morrison’s testimony, the rationale of Respondent for the requirement of the copy of Petitioner’s notification to the manufacturer, and copy of receipt of acceptance by the manufacturer, is to ascertain that Petitioner has complied with Section 681.104, Florida Statutes, requiring that all applicants for arbitration first notify the vehicle manufacturer by registered or express mail of such application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard C. Holtzendorf, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Arthur H. Baredian 275 Ravine Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the Petitioners' Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 681.109, Florida Statutes, Respondent's Division of Consumer Services is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate consumer requests for arbitration pursuant to Chapter 681, which is officially known as the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, but which is more commonly referred to as the "Lemon Law". As part of its responsibilities, the Division of Consumer Services determines whether complaints it receives from consumer against manufacturers pursuant to the "Lemon Law" qualify for referral to the Department of Legal Affairs for further proceedings before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. 1/ On March 29, 1995, Respondent received and filed Petitioners' Request for Arbitration under the provisions of the Lemon Law. Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes, defines the "Lemon Law rights period" as being ". . . the period ending 18 months after the date of the original delivery of a motor vehicle to a consumer or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever first occurs." The automobile that is the subject of Petitioners' complaint is a Toyota Camry. The Petitioners took delivery of this vehicle on July 25, 1992, the date they leased the vehicle from a Toyota dealer. Eighteen months from July 25, 1992, is January 25, 1994. It was not until September 1, 1994, that Petitioners put 24,000 miles on the vehicle. The initial Lemon Law period, as defined by Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes, expired for the subject vehicle on January 25, 1994. Petitioners made complaints to the dealer prior to January 25, 1994, that remained uncured after January 25, 1994. Because of those complaints, the Respondent assumed that the Lemon Law period was extended for an additional six month period pursuant to Section 681.104(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioners, the Respondent determined that the extended Lemon Law period expired July 25, 1994. It is found that the extended Lemon Law period for the subject vehicle expired on or before July 25, 1994. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 681.109(4), Florida Statutes, provides that a consumer must request arbitration before the Arbitration Board within six months after the expiration of the extended Lemon Law rights period. Because of that provision, the Petitioners had until January 25, 1995, to file its request for relief under the Lemon Law. The request for relief under the Lemon Law, first filed by Petitioners on March 29, 1995, was not timely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that denies the Petitioners' Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board on the grounds that the request was not timely. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner timely filed her request for arbitration under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible under Chapter 681 for receiving and evaluating consumer complaints and requests for arbitration that are filed against automobile manufacturers and dealers doing business in the state. Respondent is required to determine if a consumer's request for arbitration should be referred to the Attorney General for arbitration. Petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of Section 681.102(4). Petitioner purchased a motor vehicle for personal use and took delivery of the motor vehicle on September 15, 1992 (the "motor vehicle"). 2/ Petitioner filed two requests for arbitration for her motor vehicle. Petitioner filed her first request for arbitration on February 22, 1995. She filed her second request for arbitration on May 16, 1995. By letter dated March 7, 1995, Respondent notified Petitioner that her first request for arbitration lacked certain required information and returned the request for arbitration to Petitioner. Petitioner voluntarily withdrew her first request for arbitration on April 12, 1995. Respondent closed its file regarding the first request for arbitration. On May 16, 1995, Petitioner filed her second request for arbitration. Pursuant to a letter dated May 19, 1995, Respondent denied Petitioner's second request for arbitration on the grounds that it was not timely filed. Petitioner is generally required under Chapter 681 to file her request for arbitration within the time defined in Section 681.102(9) as the "Lemon Law rights period" (the "initial rights period"). The initial rights period expires on the earlier occurrence of two dates. The first date is 18 months from the date of delivery. The second date is the date that the motor vehicle accumulates 24,000 miles. The dealer delivered the motor vehicle to Petitioner on September 15, 1992. Eighteen months from the date of delivery was March 15, 1994. The motor vehicle accumulated 24,000 miles on September 16, 1993. The initial rights period expired on September 16, 1993, because that date occurred earlier than March 15, 1994. The initial rights period is extended, pursuant to Section 681.104(3)(b), for six months if there are any uncured nonconformities (the "extension period"). Petitioner experienced uncured nonconformities in the gear shift mechanism of the motor vehicle. The gear shift arm buzzes when the motor vehicle is driven in a forward gear. The gear shift arm jumps out of gear when the motor vehicle is being driven in reverse. 3/ Petitioner took the motor vehicle in for repair four times for the problem with the gear shift mechanism. The dealer attempted to repair the problem on: August 6, 1992, when the vehicle had accumulated 3,987 miles; September 16, 1993, when the vehicle had accumulated 24,000 miles; 4/ January 9, 1995, when the vehicle had accumulated 38,568 miles; and January 30, 1995, when the vehicle had accumulated 39,087 miles. The dealer never repaired the problem with the gear shift mechanism. The motor vehicle accumulated 24,000 miles on September 16, 1993. The extension period extended the time in which Petitioner was entitled to file her request for arbitration from September 16, 1993, until March 16, 1994. Respondent added 51 days to the time in which Petitioner was allowed to file a request for arbitration to reflect the period of time from the date Petitioner filed her first request for arbitration, on February 22, 1995, until she voluntarily withdrew her first request for arbitration on April 12, 1995. Fifty-one days from the last date of the extension period, March 16, 1994, expired on May 7, 1994. Petitioner filed her second request for arbitration on May 16, 1995, approximately one year after May 7, 1994. Petitioner did not file her second request for arbitration in a timely manner. 5/ Petitioner's second request for arbitration was not filed in a timely manner under the alternative deadline for filing a request for arbitration. Even if it is assumed that the motor vehicle did not accumulate 24,000 miles until 18 months after the date of delivery of the vehicle, Petitioner did not file her second request for arbitration in a timely manner. 6/ The dealer delivered the motor vehicle on September 15, 1992. The initial period of 18 months expired on March 15, 1994. The extension period expired on September 15, 1994. Fifty-one days from the expiration of the extension period was November 5, 1994. Petitioner did not file her request for arbitration until May 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for arbitration as not timely filed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration under the Florida Lemon Law, concerning his 1994 Ford Explorer, purchased on May 17, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, DOA, was the state agency responsible for the receipt, evaluation and, when appropriate, forwarding of consumer RFAs to the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board conducted by the Attorney General of the State of Florida. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner, Kenneth P. Williamson, purchased a new 1994 Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle from Gator Ford in Tampa, Florida. Almost from the beginning, Petitioner experienced a vibration of the entire vehicle when a speed of more than fifty miles per hour was achieved. After several repair attempts, when the Petitioner had driven the vehicle for 12,000 miles without any relief from the problem, he took it back to Gator Ford for repairs. Gator’s efforts did not detect the cause of the problem or correct it. At some later point in time, when sought, no paper work relating to that service call could be found at Gator Ford. Thereafter, however, Petitioner took the vehicle to Carl Flammer Ford in Tarpon Springs for the same problem. Neither the problem’s cause nor a solution to it could be found. On or about June 23, 1995, the odometer on the vehicle in question indicated it had been driven 24,990 miles. Based on that fact, it is found that as of June 22, 1995, Petitioner had exceeded 24,000 miles of operation in the vehicle. This was recognized by Petitioner in his answer to question 17C on the RFA, when he indicated he had reached 24,000 miles on his vehicle in “5/95 OR 6/95.” On May 30, 1996, when the vehicle had 37,800 miles on it, Petitioner forwarded a motor Vehicle Defect Notification Form to Ford Motor Company advising of the vibration problem. That notice, sent by certified mail, was received by Ford on June 5, 1996. Petitioner claims, and Respondent admits, that his vehicle was out of service at least 21 days due to one or more substantial defects, and that there have been three or more repair attempts made to correct the same defect or condition. Because of these factors, and because Petitioner filed a notice of non-conformity with the manufacturer, albeit late in the proceedings, the DOA considered Petitioner to be entitled to the extension period within which his RFA may be filed. The times in this case pertinent under Florida’s Lemon Law are: Date of purchase of vehicle 5/17/94 Eighteen months from date of purchase 11/16/95 24,000 miles of operation reached 6/22/95 Initial Lemon Law limit reached 6/22/95 Six month extension due to Notice of Non-compliance filed 12/22/95 Six month deadline to file after expiration of 6 month extension 6/22/95 Date RFA filed with DOA 7/24/96 Excessive delay 32 days. On the basis of the above chronology, the DOA concluded that Petitioner’s RFA was not timely, and by letter dated August 23, 1996, rejected it. Petitioner submitted his Petition for Formal Proceedings on September 5, 1996, and it was received by the DOA on September 19, 1996. As of the date of this hearing, the unacceptable condition of the vehicle still exists. Ford Motor Company has contended that the condition is not serious, and when the vehicle had 16,000 miles on it, offered Petitioner $1,000 toward the purchase of a new vehicle. The dealer has now indicated it can do no more to correct the condition in issue. Petitioner claims he was misled by Ford Motor Company into waiting until the time limit for filing the Lemon Law RFA had expired. He did not know of the time constraints under the Lemon Law and believed Ford would correct the problem. He also claims that notwithstanding his signature appears on all the pertinent documents herein, his wife took care of all the paperwork. Ms. Williamson believes that the RFA was sent in on or around the time it was dated - June 5, 1996, but she cannot be sure. She is also not sure if it was sent by certified mail, but she has no receipt to demonstrate it was. She contends the RFA could not have been held by her as long as would be required for it to not be delivered until July 24, 1996, and suggests the DOA’s date stamp might be in error. The likelihood of that is remote. Petitioner and his wife admit to having been given a Lemon Law pamphlet when they bought the vehicle but also admit they did not study it timely to determine the criteria for filing a RFA. They want an opportunity to exercise their rights under the Lemon Law through arbitration and though they are not prepared to give this up because they cannot afford to replace the vehicle, they are very uncomfortable regarding its safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s Request for Arbitration as untimely. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida this 14th day of January, 1997. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth P. Williamson 3732 Meridian Pace Land O’Lakes, Florida 34536 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
