The post Ayala Obtains $85,000 Global Settlement in Against Miami Towing Company that Towed and Sold its Client’s Vehicles first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

In what’s a more recurrent pattern, property owners and tow companies are trying to have their attorneys fees paid by consumers in towing cases—even when they haven’t even won the case—as a plain effort to intimidate consumers and dissuade them from lawsuits using consumer protection statutes.

In the present case, Ayala’s client alleged that, despite having a valid reservation agreement (and email confirmations permitting her presence) the Defendant still ordered the tow of her home trailer—with all her possessions in it.

The defendant moved to dismiss the case alleging that the named defendant was not the correct property owner. After amending the complaint to list the correct defendant, the property owner moved for attorneys fees arguing, among others, that Section 715.07 of Florida Statutes gives it a right to attorneys fees.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the property owner defendant did not win the case on the merits (and obtain a judgment) Ayala’s attorneys argued that section 715.07 contains a unilateral, not a bilateral attorney fee provision.

Section 715.07(4) reads in part:

“When a person improperly causes a vehicle or vessel to be removed, such person shall be liable to the owner or lessee of the vehicle or vessel for the cost of removal, transportation, and storage; any damages resulting from the removal, transportation, or storage of the vehicle or vessel; attorney’s fees; and court costs.”

As seen, 715.07(4) allows for an award of attorney’s fees when a person improperly causes a vehicle or vessel to be removed. Nothing in 715.07(4) reads that the entity removing a vehicle obtains attorneys fees if it prevails—what the defendant was arguing in the current case.

For more information about illegal towing litigation in Florida contact an experienced illegal towing attorney in Miami at 305-570-2208.

You can also email trial attorney Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

You can also scheduled a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/consultation/

The post Ayala Defeats Property Owner’s Motion for Attorneys Fees Against its Client in Illegal Towing Case first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

In Murrell, a vehicle that was parked in a no-parking zone was removed by a towing company on behalf of a property owner. The vehicle owner demanded his vehicle back from the towing company, who refused to return it unless the vehicle owner paid $15 for towing and storage. In response, the vehicle owner sued the towing company for conversion. After a jury awarded the vehicle owner more than $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, the towing company appealed.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that a towing company had no lien over a vehicle it towed without the consent of the vehicle owner and that withholding the vehicle in exchange for payment constituted conversion as a matter of law. Id. at 333. That decision caused towing companies to stop operating in the area and prompted the legislature to pass § 713.78, Fla. Stat., which granted towing companies a lien on vehicles, as long as they complied with certain requirements, outlined in § 715.07, Fla. Stat.

At the time the bill that would become § 715.07, Fla. Stat., was proposed, the legislature made its intent clear. As it was making its way through the legislative process, the bill went to the Judiciary Committee, which drafted a report analyzing the purpose of the statute and how it served that intended purpose. In its analysis of the consequences of the bill, the Judiciary Committee wrote:

The bill addresses the interests of all parties involved:

• For the property owner or lessor, criteria by which a vehicle can be towed away are outlined. In addition, the property owner or lessor is not liable for costs of removal, transportation or storage, or damages caused by removal, transportation, or storage.
• The towing company is given a lien for a reasonable towing and storage fee on any vehicle it removes. If the company properly removes the vehicle, it shall not be liable for damages connected with the towing or storing of the vehicle.
• If the owner so requests, he must be notified of the name and location of the person or company that removed his vehicle. If the area from which his car was towed is unattended, the property owner or lessor must leave a prominent notice of the name and location of the towing company. The vehicle owner will have recourse against the towing company in the event the vehicle is towed or stored improperly.

It is clear thus, from the legislative history that § 715.07, Fla. Stat., that it is intended to grant immunity in exchange for compliance, and liability for damages in exchange for non-compliance. It is also clear that the statute requires compliance from both property owners and towing companies, and that both are liable if the tow is rendered improper by non-compliance.

Despite the clear language of § 715.07, Fla. Stat., and the legislative history prior to it, several appellate decisions have recently undermined § 715.07, Fla. Stat., by holding that some aspects of it do not create a cause of action for consumers for damages experienced during tows.  A statute designed to protect consumers from predatory towing practices since its inception is now being undermined. In subsequent articles, we will go over these recent decisions. Stay tuned.

For more information about our illegal towing practice contact a wrongful towing attorney at 305-570-2208 or email attorney Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com

The post A Brief History of the §715.07 Florida Statutes—the Wrongful Towing Statute (Part I) first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

By Ryan Sawal

On August 18, 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Lacayo v. Versailles Gardens I Condominium Association, Inc. Lacayo involved an individual (the “Plaintiff”) whose car had been immobilized by a Miami-based booting company while parked in Versailles Gardens’ (the “complex owner”) complex.

Plaintiff sued both the booting company and the complex owner, Versailles Gardens for violations of Miami-Dade County Ordinance section 30-479. Section 30-479 requires that “[a]ny person who improperly causes a vehicle to be immobilized shall be liable to the vehicle owner or his authorized representative for the costs of the services provided, any damages result[ing] from the immobilization, and the immobilization and attorney’s fees.”[1] Plaintiff alleged that both the owner of the complex and the booting company should be held liable because, at the time when it immobilized his vehicle, the booting company was acting as an agent of the complex owner. Plaintiff’s complaint went on to allege that the immobilization was unlawful because the complex did not have the proper signage to put vehicle owners on notice that their vehicles were subject to immobilization.

The Third District Court of Appeal held that the Ordinance plainly stated that “[a]ny person who improperly causes a vehicle to be immobilized shall be liable to the vehicle owner.” The Court also noted that the Ordinance specifically referred to a “person providing immobilization services” elsewhere. Upon this reasoning, the court held that according to the plain language of the statute, both the booting company and the owner of the complex were liable for failure to comply with the ordinance because they were “person[s] who improperly cause[d] a vehicle to be immobilized.”

This holding helps clarify who can be held liable for illegal immobilization and towing in South Florida.

Specifically, in Miami-Dade County, the Illegal Towing Ordinances (§30-474 – § 30-475) mirror the Illegal Immobilization Ordinance (§30-479). Similar to the Illegal Immobilization Ordinance, the Miami-Dade Illegal Towing Ordinance requires that “[a]ny person who improperly causes a vehicle to be immobilized shall be liable to the vehicle owner or his authorized representative for the cost of the services provided, any damages results from the immobilization, and the immobilization and attorney’s fees.”[2] Also similar to the Illegal Immobilization Ordinance, the Miami-Dade Illegal Towing Ordinance also separately references the “person providing towing services” in its language.

As a result of Lacayo, there is now a binding precedent in Miami-Dade County to hold both the agent and the principal involved in illegal immobilization and illegal towing cases liable for wrongfully immobilizing/towing your vehicle.

If you believe that your vehicle has been wrongfully immobilized or towed, contact the law office of Ayala Law P.A. at (305) 570-2208 eduardo@ayalalawpa.com. Any person who improperly causes a vehicle to be immobilized shall be liable to the vehicle owner or his authorized representative for the cost of the services provided, any damages resulting from the immobilization, and the immobilization and attorney’s fees.

[1] Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code § 30-479(14).

[2] Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code § 30-475(f).

The post Who can be Held Liable for a Wrongfully Towed Vehicle? first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Being towed is a traumatic event. You may have been going to drop your child at school to then find yourself car-less. Today, we discuss a common illegal tactic we see from towing companies at the time consumers go to pick up their vehicle after a tow.

Imagine you were towed (legally or illegally, that’s a separate topic) and you go pick up your vehicle. The vehicle is in your spouse’s name, not yours. You are listed on the insurance card of the vehicle. The towing agent at the lot tells you that he can’t give you the car because you are not listed in the title of the vehicle. You tell him that the owner is your spouse and point to the common last name. You also show the insurance card. The tow agent is unmoved and forces you to have your spouse come in person, or in the alternative obtain a notarized affidavit authorizing you to pick the vehicle. Your spouse gets out of work, drafts something out, gets it notarized, and emails it to you. You then show it to the tow agent. The towing agent wants the original. Your spouse can’t come there because of work responsibilities so you have to take an Uber to his workplace to obtain the affidavit. The entire turnaround is four hours. The tow company charges an additional $200 for “storage” on top of the tow fee.

The fact pattern described is not uncommon. Tow companies make up silly excuses not to give you your vehicle and then charge you extra fees for having it for longer. In other cases, they make it so difficult that they keep it for days, creating a massive bill that consumers can’t pay. Tow companies then put a lien on the vehicle and sell it.

It is all part of a big scam by some tow operators. The reality is that under Florida Statutes 715.07(2)(a)(7), the tow operator has to return the vehicle to the “person in control or custody” of the vehicle. The law does not require proof of ownership, or that your name is in the registration of the vehicle. Moreover, under Florida Statutes 715.07(2)(a)(9), tow companies have to return the vehicle within one hour after it was requested. And yet, tow companies act as if there are competing claims; as if 10 people are making a claim for that very vehicle. The reality is that there is rarely—if ever—more than one person making a claim in a single-vehicle. Tow companies know this, but make the pickup process difficult to simply overcharge or try to sell your vehicle for cheap to make a quick profit.

Beware of these tow scams and if you have a case, do not hesitate to call a tow attorney at Ayala Law firm at 305-570-2208 or email attorney Eduardo A. Maura at eduardo@ayalalawpa.com.

The post Towing Scams – What You Must Know About Towing Companies Deceptive Tactics in South Florida first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

The Department of Justice sued towing Target Towing and Recovery (Target) in the US Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, for the tow and illegal sale of a service member’s vehicle.

The complaint alleges that Target violated the Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when Target sold the service member’s vehicle without providing her with adequate notice. A google search, the complaint alleges, would have made it obvious that the owner was a service member. Other evidence like the fact that the Service Member’s car had at least one military decal, military documents were in the car, her address of record was at a U.S. Marine Corps base, and that she obtained her vehicle loan through Navy Federal Credit Union would have also made it clear it was a service member’s car.

Under the SCRA “[a] person holding a lien on the property or effects of a service member may not, during any period of military service of the service member and for 90 days thereafter, foreclose or enforce any lien on such property or effects

without a court order granted before the foreclosure or enforcement”  50 U.S.C. § 3958(a)(1).

Attorney Eduardo A. Maura in light of the news said: “it is remarkable—and we are happy to see—that the Department of Justice is getting involved in a towing case. The facts of the case highlights what is a recurrent pattern in the towing world: companies are quick to tow, and quick to sell; ask questions later.”

For more details on this news check Shore News Network article at: Article

For more information about illegal towing, or if you’ve been towed, call or text at 305-570-2208 or email attorney Maura at eayala@ayalalawpa.com.

The post Department of Justice Gets Involved in Towing Litigation and Obtains a $20,000 Consent Judgment for Service Member first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

The case was field originally in July 2018 in county court and then transferred to circuit court in March 2019. After overcoming innumerable hurdles and the defense dilatory tactics, Ayala was able to prevail at the Motion for Class Certification hearing.

In a class action case, a Plaintiff files a case on behalf of a putative class alleging a common pattern of conduct by the defendant that affected a large group of people—the class. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that when American forced vehicle owners to sign a release before they could inspect their cars when they picked them up, American violated Florida Statutes 715.07 prohibiting this specific practice.

Judge Spencer Eig agreed with Ayala’s theory of the case and certified the class. The case now moves forward towards trial as a class action.

For more information about class actions or our consumer protection practice call us at 305-570-2208 or email us at eayala@ayalalawpa.com.

The post Florida Judge Certifies a Class of Hundreds of Owners Whose Vehicles Were Towed by American Towing of Miami first appeared on Ayala Law PA.

Most consumers, specially in south Florida, dread the moment they come back to their cars, and find that their vehicle has been towed. The experience can be awful. If you were going to pick up your child, you have to call someone to do it for you. If you were going to a meeting, reschedule. If you were going to work, call late. If you were going to school, miss class. Endless circumstances affected by the fact that your vehicle—in a state with little or no public transportation—was towed.

But you are not powerless. Thankfully, Florida legislature realized the problem that predatory towing practices create in consumers’ lives. Thus, Florida enacted very strict towing laws. In fact, Florida, unlike other statutes or rules, requires that “[t]he towing or removal of any vehicle or vessel from private property without the consent of the registered owner or other legally authorized person in control of that vehicle or vessel is subject to strict compliance.” Florida Statutes 715.07 (2)(a). The key words here are “strict compliance.” In other words, if the towing company failed to comply with any of the requirements of the statutes, they could be responsible not only for your damages, but for the fees you had to pay a lawyer to recover these damages.

There are several requirements in Section 715.07 of Florida Statutes that are important to note, and that may help you fight towing companies back.

For example 715.07(2)(a)(9) specifically prohibits that a towing company make you “sign a release, before their vehicle is returned.” Often times, before you even have a chance to see if your vehicle is damage-free, you are made to sign a release of liability essentially saying that the towing company is not responsible for any damage to the vehicle.

Additionally, the towing company its required under Section 715.07 (2)(a) 2, to notify the municipal police department within 30-minutes of picking the vehicle. Failure to do it may render the tow unlawful.

Finally, there are strict signage requirements in Section 715.07(2)5 a-d. Some of them are: Two inch font, light reflective letters, located 3-feet from the ground, and others. In a strict compliance rule, the tow of you vehicle may have been unlawful based on signage failures, even if the place where you parked is questionable.

What do we recommend?

1. If you have concerns that your vehicle may be towed in a particular location, take a photo of the place where you parked your car and keep it. It’ll be useful should you have to file a case to recover damages.
2. Do not sign a release before you have inspected your car. And if they don’t let you inspect it, write in it: “Did not let me inspect” in the receipt.
3. Call the police to see if your tow was reported.
4. Keep all documents, receipt, photos, and evidence of the incident.
5. Call an experienced towing lawyer for advice.

The more people take these steps, the more we can, together, fight predatory towing practices. Call Ayala for a consultation at 305-570-2208.

The post Can Unlawful, Predatory Towing be Stopped? Concrete Steps You Can Take to Protect Your Vehicle first appeared on Ayala Law PA.