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 Whether Petitioner's arbitration request was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased his vehicle, a 1991 Ford F-350 Supercab XLT Lariat from Bartow Ford in Bartow, Florida on September 4, 1990. At the time of purchase, the odometer read less than 100 miles. Petitioner applied for arbitration on April 8, 1994. At the time of Petitioner's arbitration request, the vehicle had been driven approximately eighty-three thousand (83,000) miles. Petitioner's problems with his vehicle center around the automatic transmission. Respondent's vehicle reached twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles on or about December 15, 1991. On April 18, 1994, Respondent notified Petitioner that his arbitration request was untimely filed and was being denied. The Motor Vehicle Sales Warranty Enforcement Act a/k/a the "Lemon Law", which is set forth in Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, is administered jointly by the Respondent and the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, Department of Legal Affairs. Respondent is responsible for initially reviewing an application to determine whether or not it is facially appropriate and to make a determination as to whether the applicant is, or is not, "potentially entitled to relief". Based on Respondent's determination that Petitioner's request was untimely filed, the request was denied on April 18, 1994. Petitioner's vehicle initially developed a transmission problem within six thousand seven hundred and seven (6,707) miles. The first service repair came on or about January 15, 1991. Petitioner returned the vehicle with the same problem on or about August 14, 1991 at which time the vehicle odometer read twenty-two thousand one hundred six (22,106) miles. Petitioner took the vehicle for repairs on three subsequent occasions and on each occasion the manufacturer rebuilt or replaced the transmission. Petitioner continues to have problems with his transmission and the manufacturer repairs the vehicle whenever it is brought in for service under the waranty. James D. Morrison, Respondent's supervisor for its "Lemon Law" section, reviewed Petitioner's file and acted on Petitioner's arbitration request. As noted, the request was filed on April 8, 1994. Morrison's review confirmed that Petitioner purchased his vehicle on September 4, 1990. Based on Morrison's calculations, Petitioner had to timely file his arbitration request within eighteen months of the date of purchase or twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles. Morrison used the most extended filing period by referring to the date of purchase and counting forward eighteen months which derived the date of March 6, 1992. Morrison granted Petitioner an additional extension of six months in compliance with extensions allowed if a defect occurs during the "lemon law" period. By granting Petitioner these extensions and the most extended allowable filing period within which the filing had to have been made, all arbitration requests by Petitioner, to be timely filed, had to occur on or before December 4, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for Lemon Law arbitration as it was untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of October, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul G. LaPlaca Post Office Box 787 Valrico, Florida 33594 Barbara R. Edwards, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture 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 in this case is whether the 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 On May 20, 1993, the Petitioner took delivery of a new 1993 Volvo (the subject vehicle) from Gold Coast Volvo in Pompano Beach, Florida. The Petitioner put 24,000 miles on the subject vehicle on or before October 2, 1995. The Petitioner had problems with the subject vehicle, the most serious of which were that on an intermittent basis the vehicle would stall at slow speeds or would hesitate and stall when acceleration was attempted. During the first 18 months following delivery of the subject vehicle, the dealer made several (more than three) unsuccessful attempts to repair the hesitation and stalling problems. The Petitioner's initial Lemon Law rights period ended on November 19, 1994. As a result of the unsuccessful attempts to repair the hesitation and stalling problems during the initial Lemon Law rights period, the Petitioner was entitled to a six month extension of the Lemon Law rights period. That extension ended on May 19, 1995. Consumers are entitled to file for relief under the subject statutory provisions for a period of six months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period. In this case, that filing period ended on November 19, 1995. Prior to the expiration of the filing period that ended on November 19, 1995, the Petitioner had a copy of the pamphlet titled "Preserving Your Rights Under the Florida Lemon Law." The Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions contained in that pamphlet. Following the expiration of the initial Lemon Law rights period, and following the expiration of the six month extension of that period, the dealer continued to make attempts to repair the continuing intermittent problems and continued to make assurances that eventually the problems would be resolved. In reliance on these attempts and assurances, the Petitioner postponed taking action to enforce his rights under the Lemon Law. On January 10 or 11, 1996, representatives of Volvo told the Petitioner they were unable to fix the intermittent hesitation and stalling problems on the subject vehicle. On January 15, 1996, the Petitioner filled out and signed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. The Petitioner sent the request for arbitration to the Department, where it was received on January 26, 1996. By letter dated February 7, 1996, the Department advised the Petitioner that it intended to deny his request for arbitration because his "application was not submitted in a timely manner." Volvo does not have a certified procedure for the resolution of consumer complaints. The Vehicle Defect Notification form and the Request for Arbitration form are separate documents with separate functions.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's Request for Arbitration as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 22nd day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis E. Martucci 5100 North Springs Way Coral Springs, Florida 33076 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of the General Counsel Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 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
