An owner of a vehicle, who prevails over a tow truck company for failure to comply with notice requirements and to make a good faith effort to determine and locate the owner, is not entitled to recovery of vehicle.

In a suit brought by the appellee owner of a vehicle against the appellant towing company, alleging conversion and civil theft arising out of the towing of the vehicle, the trial court granted a motion for vehicle release filed by the owner. The towing company appealed. The court found that the towing company failed to fully and strictly comply with the notice requirements of § 713.78, Fla. Stat. and had not made a good faith effort to determine the owner, any lien holders or any insurance company as required by statute. The appellate court ruled that, as the sheriff's office had contacted the towing company to remove the vehicle, it was necessary to first look to § 713.78(4)(b) when determining the notice requirements. Although the towing company knew that the vehicle's owner was located in Virginia, it did not contact any Virginia agencies to determine if there was an insurer or a lien holder with an interest in the vehicle. As this was error under § 713.78(4), the trial court correctly found that the towing company did not fully comply with the notice requirements of § 713.78. The towing company sold the vehicle on May 21, 2010, the owner learned of the vehicle's location on June 30, 2010, and filed his complaint on July 9, 2010. Given this, § 713.78(6) applied.

The court determined, however, that because there is no mention in § 713.78(6), Fla. Stat. that the court may return the vehicle to an owner or lien holder who prevails in his suit against a towing company, the owner was not entitled to recover the vehicle. The lack of express language in the statute allowing an owner or lien holder to recover his vehicle suggests the legislature did not intend for such a remedy to be available. The order granting possession of the vehicle to the owner was reversed.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012