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
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On June 16, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new 1/ 1994 Mitsubishi Galant ES that he had leased (for a 42-month period) from Potamkin Mitsubishi (hereinafter referred to as "Potamkin"), a Florida Mitsubishi Motors of America (hereinafter referred to as "Mitsubishi") dealership. Thereafter, problems developed with the vehicle's braking system, which caused the steering wheel to vibrate. Petitioner, who, under his lease agreement, was responsible for having the necessary repairs made to the vehicle, reported these problems to Potamkin. Potamkin was unable to completely remedy these problems within 18 months of the date of delivery (hereinafter referred to as the "18-month post- delivery period"). During the "18-month post-delivery period," Petitioner drove the vehicle less than 24,000 miles. The problems that Petitioner reported during the "18-month post- delivery" period still persist today. On or about January 24, 1995, Petitioner sent a completed Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form to the manufacturer of the vehicle, Mitsubishi, requesting that it "make a final attempt to correct the continued substantial defects" plaguing the vehicle. The defects were not remedied. On June 21, 1996, Petitioner filed with the Department a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. By letter dated June 26, 1996, the Department advised Petitioner that "a determination ha[d] been made in accordance with Chapter 681.109(6) Florida Statutes, and Rule 2-32.009(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, to reject [his request because t]he request was not submitted in a timely manner."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for arbitration because it is time-barred. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of December, 1996. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of December, 1996.
The Issue This issue on this case is whether the Petitioner filed a timely Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board.
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1993, William Coyle took delivery of a new 1994 Pontiac Bonneville. At the time the car was delivered to Mr. Coyle, the odometer indicated that the vehicle had been driven five miles. Soon after taking delivery of the vehicle, Mr. Coyle began experiencing problems with the car, including failure of the car ignition on several occasions, and a malfunctioning oil pressure indicator. On repeated occasions, Mr. Coyle returned the car to the dealer for repair. According to Mr. Coyle, the dealer was unable to fix the problems with the car. On or about July 7, 1995, Mr. Coyle filed a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form. Although Mr. Coyle mistakenly dated the form as "7/7/94," the evidence establishes that the form was actually filed in 1995. Filing a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form triggers a final opportunity for a vehicle manufacturer to correct the alleged defect. One copy of the notification form goes to the manufacturer. A second copy of the form goes to the Office of the Florida Attorney General. After the Motor Vehicle Defect Notification form was filed, the vehicle apparently was not repaired to Mr. Coyle's satisfaction. As set forth in Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, a consumer's rights under the Lemon Law extend for 18 months or 24,000 miles, whichever occurs first, and may possibly be extended an additional 6 months for those problems which have not been corrected in the initial period. Based on the repair records, Mr. Coyle's vehicle had been driven in excess of 24,000 miles by October 7, 1994. Assuming that Mr. Coyle was entitled to a six month deadline extension as provided by law, Mr. Coyle's Lemon Law rights expired on April 7, 1995. The applicable statute provides a period of six months following the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period by which a consumer must file a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. Mr. Coyle's Request for Arbitration was required to be filed not later than October 7, 1995. Mr. Coyle filed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board on December 12, 1995. By letter dated December 28, 1995, Mr. Coyle was notified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, that his request for arbitration was being rejected. As grounds for the rejection, the letter states: The lemon law rights period, as defined by Chapter 681, F.S., is 18 months or 24,000 miles, whichever occurs first, and may possibly be extended an additional 6 months for those problems which have not been corrected in the initial rights period. The Request for Arbit- ration should be received by this office with- in 6 months of the conclusion of the lemon law rights period or any extended time allowances. The attached Invoice number 6946, dated 10-07- 94, reflects that the mileage at the time of that repair to be 27,494. Since 24,000 miles apparently were exceeded prior to 10-07-94, your initial rights period ended at some point before that date. If a 6 month extension was allowed following the end of your rights period, the expiration of that extension would have occurred prior to 04-07-95. This would require that your Request for Arbitration be received by this office prior to October 07, 1995. Your application was signed December 05, 1995, post- marked 12-07-95, and received by this office 12-12-95. Reviewing all these dates, it is concluded that your application was not sub- mitted in a timely manner and must be rejected.... The evidence establishes that Mr. Coyle's Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board was not filed by the proper deadline and must be rejected. Mr. Coyle asserts that he filed a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification on or about July 7, 1995, and that such notice is sufficient to qualify as a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. A Motor Vehicle Defect Notification is a separate document from a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. The forms are filed with different agencies. The filing of a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification does not constitute a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, 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 May 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0744 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1, 10. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 William Coyle, pro se 2403 Vandervort Road Lutz, Florida 33549 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
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 The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified by Respondent as qualified for arbitration services by the Office of the Florida Attorney General.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility under the Florida Lemon Law to receive and evaluate customer complaints and Requests for Arbitration in disputes with automobile manufacturers and dealers doing business in this state, and to determine if the request qualifies for referral to the Attorney General for further processing and action. Michael F. Morrow, then the husband of Petitioner herein, Sandy Morrow, purchased a 1992 Ford explorer from Gary Brown Ford, Inc. in Hudson, Florida on April 8, 1992. The total purchase price was $19,967.94. A deposit of $1,000 was made at the time of the order, and the balance of $18,967.94 was paid in cash at the time of delivery of the vehicle on April 29, 1992. Less than one month after delivery, the Morrows began to have problems with the vehicle. On May 14, 1992 the vehicle would not start and was towed to the dealership for repairs. It was returned after 5 days. On September 21, 1992, the vehicle's paint was noticed to be chipping off and the vehicle was again returned to the dealer for correction. This time it was kept for 8 days. When, on September 28, 1992, Ms. Morrow went to retrieve the vehicle, she noticed that various chips had not been repaired, so she left it with the dealer for another 4 days. On November 22, 1993, Ms. Morrow replaced the battery in the vehicle. At this time, the vehicle was only 19 months old. A radio/cassette player problem noticed at that time was un-traceable and ignored by the dealer. However, on July 14, 1994, after parts on the vehicle had begun falling apart, Ms. Morrow again brought the vehicle in for repairs and left it for 1 day. At this time the dealer repaired the armrest. It also corrected a mildew odor in the air conditioning and a failure of that unit to cool; replaced missing screws in the driver's seat; and fixed the rear windshield washer which had broken off. In addition, the radio/cassette player problem still existed and was not fixed. On August 8, 1994, because the radio/cassette player was still not working, Ms. Morrow returned the vehicle to the dealer and left it for 16 days until August 23, 1994. Approximately one month later, on September 24, 1994, while Ms. Morrow was on vacation with the vehicle, the air conditioning stopped working. Having achieved no satisfaction from the dealer, Ms. Morrow took the vehicle to another mechanic who repaired the unit in one day. Nonetheless, four days later, on September 28, 1994, when Ms. Morrow opened the vehicle door, the door lock fell out. No tampering with the lock could be found, and the vehicle was in repair for 1 day. On November 1, 1994, the rear window washer stopped working and the vehicle was in the shop for 1 day. The following day, Bill Currie Ford, a Tampa Ford dealership, took the vehicle in for repainting due to fading. The vehicle was in the shop for 21 days. When it was returned, Ms. Morrow noticed that the interior was coated with a red/orange residue, the carpets were not reinstalled, and various parts were left lying inside. When she complained, she was told by the service manager that they had had to take the car apart to repaint it. The following day, the dealership cleaned the paint residue from the inside of the vehicle, but Ms. Morrow had to reinstall the carpet and replace some of the parts herself. While all this was going on, and since she was still getting little, if any, satisfaction from the dealer, Ms. Morrow telephoned the Department's Office of Consumer Services. The individual with whom she spoke advised her to go through the Ford Motor Company consumer appeals process first. As a result, on August 16, 1994, Ms. Morrow wrote to the Ford Consumer Appeals Board and outlined her litany of complaints regarding the vehicle in question. By letter dated October 8, 1994, the Dispute Settlement Board of Ford Motor Company advised Ms. Morrow that since most of her complaints, those relating to the paint, rear washer, arm rest, seat, radio and air conditioner, had been resolved, it was the unanimous opinion of the Board that she be offered a 12 month/12,000 mile Extended Service Plan and be reimbursed $10.60 for air deodorizing. Ms. Morrow was also advised that if she rejected this offer in settlement, she could pursue arbitration with the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board administered by the office of the Florida Attorney General. She was also notified of the fact that her Request for Arbitration must be filed within either 6 months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period, or within 30 days after the final action by Ford's board, whichever was later. On November 17, 1994, Ms. Morrow signed her Request for Arbitration which was received in the Department on November 22, 1994. The Request was reviewed and a decision made to reject it as untimely on November 30, 1994. That decision was communicated to Ms. Morrow in Mr. Hamrick's letter mentioned previously. The decision to reject Ms. Morrow's Request for Arbitration as untimely was based on a calculation of the time which elapsed after the decision of the Ford Settlement Board on October 8, 1994. The Department computed the thirty days period to expire on November 7, 1994. The Lemon Law rights period of 18 months from the date of delivery of the vehicle expired on October 29, 1993. However, because at that time all complaints regarding the vehicle had not been corrected, it was extended to April 29, 1994. Under either scenario, and applying that most liberal to Ms. Morrow, her Request for Arbitration, signed on November 17, 1994, and received by the Department on November 22, 1994, was considered untimely. Under the terms of the Florida Lemon Law, if the complainant does not meet the eligibility requirements for requesting arbitration, the Department has no authority to send the complaint to the Attorney General for arbitration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Agriculture denying Ms. Morrow's request for arbitration services. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 4th day of April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandy Morrow 4022 Shamrock Tampa, Florida 33611 John S. Koda, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building 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 - PL10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new, 1994 Mercedes Benz SL600, bearing vehicle identification number WDBFA76EORF093081. The selling dealer was Regency Autohaus, Inc. in Naples, Florida, which is where delivery to Petitioner took place. Petitioner experienced numerous mechanical problems with the vehicle starting shortly after taking delivery. Problems during the first year of ownership included air conditioning that would not work and a transmission problem that would not permit use of gears other than third. On February 22, 1995, Petitioner sent to Mercedes Benz a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. Petitioner continued to experience problems with the car and, on May 9, 1996, sent Mercedes Benz a second Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. Despite repeated attempts by Mercedes Benz to repair largely recurring problems with the car, Petitioner was unable to obtain satisfactory repairs. Twice, the Mercedes Benz dealer in Louisville, Kentucky, where Petitioner lives part of the year, towed the car to the shop to repair a failure of the car to start. Keeping the car 11 days the first time and six days the second time, the Louisville dealer could not determine the source of the problem. Later, in September 1996, the Louisville dealer kept the car for 13 days trying to fix several problems. At this time, the car had 23,692 miles on it. The issue in this case is whether Petitioner made a timely demand for arbitration under the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. The Motor Vehicle Defect Notifications that Petitioner sent to Mercedes Benz are not demands for arbitration. The forms state that, under the Florida Lemon Law, the purchaser is “requesting that [the manufacturer] make a final attempt to correct the continuing substantial defect(s) or condition(s).” In the spring of 1996, Petitioner spoke with several representatives of Mercedes Benz and Respondent about arbitration and procedures under the Florida Lemon Law. By letter to a national Mercedes Benz representative dated April 24, 1996, Petitioner complained about the car and the discourteous treatment he had received from another Mercedes Benz employee. The letter explains why Petitioner does “not want to keep this vehicle” and warns that, if Petitioner did not hear from someone at Mercedes Benz within five days, he would “have no alternative but take further action.” By letter dated May 9, 1996, Petitioner sent the Office of the Attorney General a letter with a copy of the second Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. The letter notes that the car was in the shop for repairs for more than 15 days prior to the expiration of 18 months and thus appears to be covered by the Florida Lemon Law. The letter concludes: “I have requested that the purchase price be refunded or that the vehicle be repaired.” By letter dated May 23, 1996, Petitioner informed a Mercedes Benz representative in St. Petersburg, Florida, that Petitioner had researched his rights under the Florida Lemon Law. Petitioner stated that Mercedes Benz had to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price. Petitioner added, “If your company fails to do this, then the only alternative would be to arbitrate the matter . . ..” The letter concludes: “It would seem to me that your company should be willing to go ahead and do this rather than go through the arbitration and be ordered to do something that you could voluntarily do. Please advise your thoughts on the matter.” On July 5, 1996, Petitioner filed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. Immediately above Petitioner’s signature, which is dated June 28, 1996, the form warns that persons making false statements with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty are guilty of misdemeanor violations of cited Florida Statutes. The form adds: I hereby request arbitration of my case with the Florida New Motor Vehicle Board. I certify that all statements made in connection with this request are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that this document and its attachments are public records. The letters of April 29 and May 9 and 23 are not demands for arbitration. They are demands for the remedies that are available under the Florida Lemon Law, but they are not demands for arbitration. Nowhere in these three letters does Petitioner, who is an attorney, make a definitive demand of Mercedes Benz or Respondent for arbitration. The letters mention Mercedes Benz’s liability under the Florida Lemon Law and the remedies available under the law. The letters implicitly warn of arbitration, but continue to reflect Petitioner’s strategy during this period to try to work out this matter without the necessity of legal proceedings. Mercedes Benz does not maintain a certified procedure for the resolution of disputes of the type involved in this case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of January, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Bertram Post Office Box 25 Jamestown, Kentucky 42629-0025 Attorney Rhonda Long Bass Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building 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 and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
