## Facts

- Michael Green took his 1985 Ford LTD to Metro Ford, Inc. for repairs.
- A dispute arose about the price of the repairs; Green refused to pay the approximately $673.56 (about $675) repair bill.
- Because Green did not pay, Metro Ford refused to release the vehicle to him.
- Green filed a small-claims action in county court alleging Metro Ford converted his vehicle by withholding it.
- On the record reviewed by the District Court of Appeal, it was unclear whether Green received a written estimate as required by section 559.905, Florida Statutes.
- Metro Ford did not file a counterclaim seeking payment of the repair bill.
- The county court entered judgment for Metro Ford on the conversion claim, finding no conversion, but stated it could not order Green to pay the repair bill because Metro Ford had filed no counterclaim requesting that relief.
- Green appealed to the appellate division of the circuit court, which reversed and remanded for a new trial and granted Metro Ford leave to amend to assert a counterclaim for the repair charges.
- Metro Ford then sought second-tier certiorari in the Third District Court of Appeal to quash the appellate division’s order.

## Issues

1. On second-tier certiorari review, did the circuit court appellate division depart from the essential requirements of law by reversing and remanding for a new trial and allowing Metro Ford to amend to add a counterclaim for the repair bill in a small-claims case?

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal denied Metro Ford’s petition for writ of certiorari.
- The court held the county court, acting in small-claims jurisdiction, erred by considering only the single issue framed in Green’s complaint rather than addressing the full dispute reflected by the record.
- The court concluded the circuit court appellate division’s remedy—remand for a new trial with leave to amend to assert a counterclaim—fit the function of small-claims proceedings and was not a certiorari-level error.

## Legal Principles

- Florida Small Claims Rules are construed to secure the “simple, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of actions in county court.
- Small-claims court is intended to be a “People’s Court,” where technical pleading rules should not block a fair resolution of the parties’ actual controversy.
- In small-claims practice, the trial judge may take an active role and may apply controlling law on the court’s own motion when doing so will resolve the dispute fairly and efficiently.
- Second-tier certiorari is extraordinary relief; it requires a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, not merely legal error.

## Conclusion

Because small-claims procedure is designed to decide the real dispute without being controlled by pleading technicalities, the Third District held that the county court should not have limited itself to the conversion theory alone, and the circuit appellate division’s remand for a new trial with leave for Metro Ford to add a counterclaim for the repair bill did not amount to a departure from the essential requirements of law; therefore, certiorari was denied.


Metro Ford, Inc. v. Green, 724 So. 2d 706 (1999)