CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC v. Musacchia

District Court of Appeal of Florida

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC v. Musacchia

64 So. 3d 141, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8400, 2011 WL 2200753

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket4D10-212

StatusPublished

This text of 64 So. 3d 141 (CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC v. Musacchia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC v. Musacchia, 64 So. 3d 141, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8400, 2011 WL 2200753 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Chrysler Group, LLC (“Chrysler”) 1 appeals the final judgment granting the Musacchias’ claim for attorney’s fees under section 681.112(1), Florida Statutes (2006). We reverse based upon our recent decision in General Motors v. Bowie, 58 So.3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

By way of background, the Musacchias leased a new Jeep Commander in 2006. After experiencing numerous problems with the vehicle, they filed a request for arbitration with the Lemon Law New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, contending the vehicle was a “lemon” and requesting a refund. See § 681.104(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). The arbitration board determined that the vehicle was a “lemon” and ordered Chrysler to refund the Musacchias for the purchase price of the vehicle minus a rea *142 sonable offset for use. No appeal was taken from the arbitration board’s order.

After Chrysler’s compliance with the arbitration order, the Musacchias filed a lawsuit under section 681.112(1) seeking to recover the attorney’s fees they incurred in the arbitration. The trial court entered a judgment awarding those fees. This appeal follows.

As in Bowie, the issue before us is whether the attorney’s fees incurred during the Lemon Law proceeding before the arbitration board constitute “damages” recoverable pursuant to section 681.112(1). We have recently held that “ ‘damages’ under section 681.112 do not include attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing the refund option through arbitration.” General Motors, 58 So.3d at 935.

In this case, the Musacchias filed a suit solely for the purpose of recovering attorney’s fees incurred in the arbitration. Accordingly, the judgment awarding attorney’s fees is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellant.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and POLEN J., concur.

1

. Chrysler Group was substituted in as a party in lieu of Chrysler LLC pursuant to the Stipulation for Substitution of Parties that was entered as an order by the circuit court.

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

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Chrysler Group, LLC (“Chrysler”) 1 appeals the final judgment granting the Musacchias’ claim for attorney’s fees under section 681.112(1), Florida Statutes (2006). We reverse based upon our recent decision in General Motors v. Bowie, 58 So.3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

By way of background, the Musacchias leased a new Jeep Commander in 2006. After experiencing numerous problems with the vehicle, they filed a request for arbitration with the Lemon Law New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, contending the vehicle was a “lemon” and requesting a refund. See § 681.104(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). The arbitration board determined that the vehicle was a “lemon” and ordered Chrysler to refund the Musacchias for the purchase price of the vehicle minus a rea *142 sonable offset for use. No appeal was taken from the arbitration board’s order.

After Chrysler’s compliance with the arbitration order, the Musacchias filed a lawsuit under section 681.112(1) seeking to recover the attorney’s fees they incurred in the arbitration. The trial court entered a judgment awarding those fees. This appeal follows.

As in Bowie, the issue before us is whether the attorney’s fees incurred during the Lemon Law proceeding before the arbitration board constitute “damages” recoverable pursuant to section 681.112(1). We have recently held that “ ‘damages’ under section 681.112 do not include attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing the refund option through arbitration.” General Motors, 58 So.3d at 935.

In this case, the Musacchias filed a suit solely for the purpose of recovering attorney’s fees incurred in the arbitration. Accordingly, the judgment awarding attorney’s fees is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellant.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and POLEN J., concur.

1

. Chrysler Group was substituted in as a party in lieu of Chrysler LLC pursuant to the Stipulation for Substitution of Parties that was entered as an order by the circuit court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 3d 141, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8400, 2011 WL 2200753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrysler-group-llc-v-musacchia-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack