Charnock v. Howard Allen's Paint & Body Shop Inc.

585 So. 2d 1158, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9489, 1991 WL 181532
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 18, 1991·No. No. 90-1936·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects, except one. The written estimates said nothing about storage charges. Nor is there any evidence that the repair shop ever orally notified appellant that it would claim per diem (or, for that matter, any other kind) storage charges. Appellant’s first notice of any claim to such charges was in the claim of lien and notice of sale. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the decision which enforces the repair shop’s lien as to the storage charges in the amount of $800. We leave undisturbed all remaining aspects of the final judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and STREITFELD, JEFFREY E., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Charnock v. Howard Allen's Paint & Body Shop Inc., 585 So. 2d 1158, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9489, 1991 WL 181532 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

585 So. 2d 1158 (Charnock v. Howard Allen's Paint & Body Shop Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fabian v. State
585 So. 2d 1158 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)