The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board concerning his purchase of a 1995 Saturn automobile.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, was the state agency responsible for the administration of matters regarding the implementation of the Lemon Law for motor vehicles in this state. Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, deals with motor vehicle sales warranties, and incorporates Florida’s Lemon Law as it is pertinent to this matter. Petitioner, Marshall E. Pitts, III, a resident of Groveland, Florida, purchased a 1995 Saturn SLI automobile on or about March 14, 1995, from Saturn of Orlando. The purchase order/contract for sale bears a date of March 14, 1995. The purchase price of the vehicle was $13,750. Petitioner had a trade-in valued at $8,400, which left a difference of $5,350 to be paid. In his request for arbitration, Petitioner indicated the purchase date as March 16, 1995, and the Department, giving him the benefit of the doubt in calculating the allowable time for filing under the Lemon Law, considered the March 16, 1995, date as the date of purchase/delivery which initiates the running of the time for filing a request for arbitration. The Lemon Law calls for filing for arbitration within 18 months or 24,000 miles of delivery. Therefore, the initial filing deadline was September 16, 1996. The vehicle reached 24,000 miles on the odometer sometime in November 1996. The Lemon Law statute allows an extension of six months for filing if a nonconformity has been reported but not cured by the manufacturer or its representative by the expiration of the Lemon Law period. Petitioner took the vehicle in for repairs to the safety belt three times starting sometime in October 1995. Exact dates are not shown. He also took it in for repairs to the transaxle three times, on March 21, 1996, September 19, 1996, and on January 31, 1997. The trouble with the transaxle was not corrected within the Lemon Law rights period. Because of this, a six-month extension for triple reports of difficulty was implemented. This extended the filing deadline to March 16, 1997. Petitioner was afforded an additional six-months extension because of the wording of the statute which grants an individual six months after the expiration of the Lemon Law Rights period to request arbitration. Application of this additional six months extended the filing deadline to September 16, 1997. Petitioner submitted his request for arbitration on October 29, 1997, and it was received in the Department on November 5, 1997. At the time of filing the request, there were 77,000 miles on the vehicle’s odometer. Petitioner claims he did not receive any notification of his rights under the Lemon Law from the dealer at the time he took delivery of the vehicle. He claims it was only when talking with an attorney late in the process that he learned of the existence of the arbitration procedure. A dealer of new cars is required by law to provide the purchaser of a new vehicle with a copy of the Department’s brochure which outlines the Lemon Law program. Petitioner also recites a litany of complaints regarding the vehicle and the treatment he received from both the selling dealer and the manufacturer. Unfortunately, traumatic as these problems must have been to him, they have no relevance to the issues here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s request for arbitration under the Florida Lemon Law as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall E. Pitts, III 3831 Soto Road Groveland, Florida 34736 Rhonda Long Bass, 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, 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 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
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner's request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board should be denied as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Department's Division of Consumer Services is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate requests for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (Board), submitted by purchasers of new motor vehicles in this state. If a request qualifies for arbitration and is timely filed, the matter is referred to the Florida Attorney General for further processing and action. On September 10, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new Ford Escort automobile from Ken Marks Ford in Clearwater, Florida. The mileage reflected on the odometer at the time of delivery was 26 miles. Petitioner claims that at the time he took delivery of the vehicle, he was not furnished with a copy of the Attorney General's brochure entitled Preserving Your Rights Under the Florida Lemon Law, nor was he given any other information, either in person or in writing, from the dealer or from anyone else, regarding the operation of the Lemon Law program. However, at hearing he indicated that he had a copy of the pamphlet as early as October 13, 1995, when he signed the Defect Notification form which is included within the pamphlet. The pamphlet clearly outlines the benefits, requirements and time limits pertinent to the program. From the very beginning of his ownership, Petitioner experienced difficulty with the vehicle. His first problem, requiring the replacement of the right head lamp assembly, took place on September 13, 1993, only three days after delivery and continued until December, 1995. He experienced problems with several systems at least three times each. These included squealing brakes, the right seat belt, the alarm light, the tachometer, the gas pedal and the idle. By the time he took the vehicle in for the third time for the most recent problem, the odometer registered 30,710 miles. He claims to have notified the manufacturer in writing of this problem on October 18, 1995. Mr. Maxwell accumulated 24,000 miles on his vehicle on or before January 4, 1995. It was on that date, when he brought the vehicle to the dealer for the third time for the squeaking brakes, the alarm light and the seat belt problems, that the odometer showed 24,035 miles. Even though the initial Lemon law period expired at 24,000 miles, Petitioner was potentially eligible for a six month extension of the original rights period because several complaints registered with the dealer during the initial period remained uncorrected at that time. The six months extension expired on or before July 4, 1995. Under the Florida Lemon Law, consumers are entitled to file for relief under the statute for a period of up to six months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period. In this case, because of the six month extension, the filing deadline of six months expired no later than January 4, 1996. In October 1995, Petitioner contacted Ford's Customer Assistance Center and requested information regarding correction of his problems. In response he received a customer satisfaction questionnaire but no assistance with his difficulties. Thereafter, he contacted the Department to request the form for filing the Request for Arbitration on November 11, 1995. Subsequent to the receipt of the Request for Arbitration from the Division, Mr. Maxwell engaged in several telephone negotiations with representatives of Ford Motor Company and received oral settlement offers from the company, including either a replacement automobile or a total refund. When Mr. Maxwell elected to receive a refund, he was told that the Ford representative would get back to him but no one from either Ford Motor Company or Ken Marks Ford ever did. Petitioner believes he was misled by both so that he would thereafter become ineligible for participation in the arbitration program. Ford Motor Company has no state- certified settlement procedure. Petitioner's Request for Arbitration reflects January 6, 1996 as the date of execution. It was received in the Division of Consumer Services on January 10, 1996. It was subsequently reviewed and rejected as untimely by the Division on January 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Request for Arbitration as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, 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 7th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Maxwell 775 Lantana Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 34630 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 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, 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
