Opinion ID: 1725454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the florida lemon law

Text: Florida enacted its version of the Model Lemon Law in 1983 to provide consumers with an alternative dispute resolution procedure to traditional court breach-of-warranty actions or federal actions under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. [2] Section 681.103(1), Florida Statutes (1989), [3] requires a motor vehicle manufacturer or its authorized service agent to make repairs necessary to conform a vehicle to its warranty. If the manufacturer or service agent is unable to correct a nonconformity within a reasonable number of attempts, the consumer is entitled to a replacement vehicle or a refund of the full purchase price of the vehicle. [4] If the manufacturer decides not to provide the consumer with a refund or replacement vehicle and the manufacturer has not established informal dispute settlement procedures, the consumer may apply for arbitration before the Arbitration Board. [5] An application for arbitration by the Arbitration Board is a precondition to the consumer filing a court action predicated on the Lemon Law. [6] The statute expressly states that the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not apply to Arbitration Board proceedings or decisions or to any appeals therefrom. [7] The legislative intent of the Lemon Law is set forth in section 681.101, Florida Statutes (1989): The Legislature recognizes that a motor vehicle is a major consumer purchase and that a defective motor vehicle undoubtedly creates a hardship for the consumer. The Legislature further recognizes that a duly franchised motor vehicle dealer is an authorized service agent of the manufacturer. It is the intent of the Legislature that a good faith motor vehicle warranty complaint by a consumer be resolved by the manufacturer within a specified period of time. It is further the intent of the Legislature to provide the statutory procedures whereby a consumer may receive a replacement motor vehicle, or a full refund, for a motor vehicle which cannot be brought into conformity with the warranty provided for in this chapter. However, nothing in this chapter shall in any way limit or expand the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law. The Lemon Law is clearly intended as an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve motor vehicle warranty disputes in expedited proceedings at less cost to consumers than traditional court proceedings. This clear intent is evidenced by the express time limits set forth in the statutory process, specifically: (1) the manufacturer must submit proceedings to the Arbitration Board within thirty days after a certified informal dispute settlement process has failed; [8] (2) the Arbitration Board must hear the dispute within forty calendar days; [9] (3) the arbitration board shall reach a decision within sixty days after the date the consumer's request for arbitration is approved; [10] (4) if the decision is in favor of the consumer, the manufacturer must appeal to the circuit court within thirty days or comply with the decision within forty days; [11] (5) if the consumer decides to appeal, he or she must do so within thirty days; [12] and (6) if an appeal by the manufacturer is unsuccessful, the manufacturer is subject to continuing damages of $25 a day for all days beyond forty days after its receipt of the Arbitration Board's decision. [13] The entitlement of either the consumer or manufacturer to a trial de novo appeal proceeding in the circuit court [14] after completion of this mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure respects the access-to-courts provision in the Florida Constitution, [15] due process, and separation of powers. Based on our review, we conclude that three issues pertaining to the Lemon Law merit discussion: (1) whether the consumer or the manufacturer bears the burden of proof at a trial de novo appeal proceeding; (2) whether the Arbitration Board's decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness at the trial de novo appeal proceeding; and (3) whether the continuing damages provision unconstitutionally penalizes the manufacturer for appealing the Arbitration Board's decision. [16]