CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 12515
...Before BARKDULL, NESBITT, and JORGENSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Chrysler Corporation appeals an order awarding attorney's fees to Rochelle Weinstein following a jury verdict in her favor pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law), § 681.10, et seq., Fla....
...her chances of prevailing were more likely than not, thus entitling her attorney to an enhancement factor of 1.5. In this appeal, Chrysler first alleges that Weinstein's attorney, while statutorily entitled to attorney's fees based on the Lemon Law, § 681.104(5)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8940, 2006 WL 1541076
...Covey of Law Offices of Rebecca J. Covey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GROSS, J. The issue in this case is the constitutionality of a provision of the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Florida's Lemon Law), section 681.1095(14), Florida Statutes (2001), which authorizes a court to condition appellate review upon payment by a manufacturer of the consumer's attorney's fees. We hold that the statute unconstitutionally violates two provisions of the Florida Constitution. This case concerns a consumer's action for damages under the Lemon Law, section 681.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (2001)....
...The Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board decided in favor of Olarte, finding that the van was a lemon and requiring T.A. Enterprises to pay damages, take back the van, and pay off a vehicle loan. T.A. Enterprises timely filed an appeal for trial de novo pursuant to section 681.1095(12), Florida Statutes (2001)....
...After a non-jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Olarte, adopting the Arbitration Board's award. In an amended final judgment, the court concluded that T.A. Enterprises acted in bad faith and awarded Olarte double damages, [3] for a total of $66,100.67, pursuant to section 681.1095(13), Florida Statutes (2001). T.A. Enterprises filed a notice of appeal directed at the amended final judgment. After a hearing, the circuit court entered a judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs of $262,388.29. See § 681.1095(13), Fla. Stat. (2001). Pursuant to section 681.1095(14), Florida Statutes *1018 (2001), the court ordered T.A....
...Enterprises filed a notice of appeal directed at that judgment. Olarte has moved this court to dismiss the appeals unless T.A. Enterprises complies with the trial court's order to pay its attorney's fees. We have stayed the appeals on the merits to consider the contention of T.A. Enterprises that section 681.1095(14) is unconstitutional....
...ts provision of Article I, section 21. The question in this case is one that we declined to reach in Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos,
689 So.2d 1132, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), quashed on other grounds,
721 So.2d 710 (Fla.1998): the constitutionality of section
681.1095(14), which states that "appellate review" of a final "judgment affirm[ing] a decision by the board in favor of a consumer" "may be conditioned upon payment by the manufacturer of the consumer's attorney's fees." Section
681.1095(14) authorizes a court to set a substantial financial barrier to an appeal. In a Lemon Law case, attorney's fees typically exceed the amount of a damages award. Here, the attorney's fee award was $260,197.50; the damage award became $66,100.67 only after it was doubled pursuant to section
681.1095(13)....
...e is no alternative method of meeting such public necessity. Psychiatric Assocs.,
610 So.2d at 424; see Cmty. Hosp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Guerrero,
579 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), aff'd,
610 So.2d 418 (Fla.1992). Applying this test to section
681.1095(14), we find that the statute fails to provide a manufacturer with an alternative remedy for appeal or a commensurate benefit....
...As to the second prong of the test, we do not believe that imposing an onerous attorney's fee requirement on the right to appeal is the only method that a statute could utilize to encourage a timely resolution of a consumer problem with a motor vehicle. The requirements of section 681.1095(14) go well beyond those minimal appellate cost bonds that the supreme court has upheld as "a valid exercise of legislative power." Austin v....
...[3] The original damage award of $33,100.67 consisted of a refund due from the manufacturer of $12,025.67 plus $21,075.00, which the court arrived at by assessing damages of $25 per day from October 22, 2001, which was the end of the 40-day period following the manufacturer's receipt of the arbitrator's decision. See § 681.1095(13), Fla....
