1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. v. A-Leet Leasing of Florida
Docket: No. 88-1383
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 2, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal from 1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. was denied, affirming the lower court's ruling against Sunrise's claim for a repair and storage lien on an automobile owned by A-Leet Leasing of Florida. A-Leet had purchased the automobile and leased it to John Sturtsman, who failed to retrieve the vehicle after it was damaged in an accident and subsequently towed to Sunrise's facility for repairs. After Sturtsman did not respond to requests for payment, Sunrise sent A-Leet a notice indicating the vehicle would be sold to cover repair costs. A-Leet secured the vehicle's release by filing a bond under the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. Sunrise then claimed against the bond for reimbursement of repair and storage expenses. However, the court found that Sunrise had not obtained the necessary written or oral authorization for the repairs from Sturtsman, as mandated by the Act. Sunrise argued that A-Leet, as the owner-lessor, should be liable despite not qualifying as a "customer" under the statutory definition. The court upheld that the definition of "customer" pertains specifically to individuals using the vehicle for personal purposes or businesses with fewer than five vehicles. Since Sturtsman was determined to be the customer in this case, and no authorization was provided for repairs, the court concluded that the requirements of the Act must be adhered to. Allowing Sunrise to recover against A-Leet would contravene the intentions of the Act, as established in Osteen v. Morris, which necessitates written authorization for any lien or recovery claims. The appeal was ultimately found to lack merit, with all judges concurring.