817.52
Obtaining vehicles with intent to defraud, failing to return hired vehicle, or tampering with mileage device of hired vehicle.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
817.52 Obtaining vehicles with intent to defraud, failing to return hired vehicle, or tampering with mileage device of hired vehicle.—
(1) OBTAINING BY TRICK, FALSE REPRESENTATION, ETC.—Whoever, with intent to defraud the owner or any person lawfully possessing any motor vehicle, obtains the custody of such motor vehicle by trick, deceit, or fraudulent or willful false representation shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) HIRING WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD.—Whoever, with intent to defraud the owner or any person lawfully possessing any motor vehicle of the rental thereof, hires a vehicle from such owner or such owner’s agents or any person in lawful possession thereof shall, upon conviction, be deemed guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The absconding without paying or offering to pay such hire shall be prima facie evidence of such fraudulent intent.
(3) FAILURE TO REDELIVER HIRED VEHICLE.—Whoever, after hiring a motor vehicle under an agreement to redeliver the same to the person letting such motor vehicle or his or her agent, at the termination of the period for which it was let, shall, without the consent of such person or persons and with intent to defraud, abandon or willfully refuse to redeliver such vehicle as agreed shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) TAMPERING WITH MILEAGE DEVICE.—Whoever, after hiring a motor vehicle from any person or persons under an agreement to pay for the use of such motor vehicle a sum of money determinable either in whole or in part upon the distance such motor vehicle travels during the period for which hired, removes, attempts to remove, tampers with, or attempts to tamper with or otherwise interfere with any odometer or other mechanical device attached to said hired motor vehicle for the purpose of registering the distance such vehicle travels, with the intent to deceive the person or persons letting such vehicle or their lawful agent as to the actual distance traveled thereby, shall upon conviction be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person who shall knowingly aid, abet or assist another in violating the provisions of this subsection shall, as a principal in the first degree, be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person violating this section may be informed against or indicted in the county where such odometer or such other mechanical device is removed, or attempted to be removed, or tampered with, or attempted to be tampered with, or otherwise interfered with, or in the county where such persons knowingly aid, abet, or assist another in violating the provisions of this section, or in the county where any part of such motor vehicle upon which is attached such odometer, or such other mechanical device, is removed or attempted to be removed.
History.—s. 1, ch. 63-177; s. 878, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 74-373; s. 8, ch. 78-412; s. 180, ch. 79-164; s. 1260, ch. 97-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1994)
“On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal summarized the facts of this case as follows: The facts leading up to Mancusi's arrest on the criminal charges were in dispute; however, it appears that Mancusi rented a vehicle from Alamo believing that his contract entitled him to…”
Willingham v. City of Orlando (2006)
“Officer Costa was investigating an outstanding warrant issued in Osceola County for failure to redeliver a hired vehicle, in violation of section 817.52, Florida Statutes (2003). Based on the outstanding Osceola County warrant, Officer Costa arrested Mr.”
Vasquez v. State (1998)
“014, Florida Statutes (1993), and obtaining a vehicle with intent to defraud, in violation of section 817.52, Florida Statutes (1993). The charges resulted from Vasquez and Rebecca Matchette purchasing a Chevrolet Tahoe worth approximately ,000 from Bob Taylor Chevrolet on…”
Williams v. State (2011)
“See § 817.52(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). The trial court ordered petitioner held without bond following a failure to appear for a hearing.”
Simmons v. State (2013)
“Appellant was charged with, entered a plea to, and was sentenced for failure to redeliver a hired vehicle in violation of section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes (2009).”
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1992)
“Mancusi brought a malicious prosecution action against Alamo subsequent to the termination of a criminal case in which Mancusi was charged with and prosecuted for having violated section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes (1985), failure to redeliver a hired vehicle.”
Rios v. State (1995)
“§ 817.52(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because the failure to return elements fit within the grand theft elements it was error, constitutionally under the double jeopardy clauses, to convict appellant of both.”
Scott v. State (1984)
“See § 817.52(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). There was no evidence adduced that the monthly fees were not paid nor that appellant had the ability to pay the fees.”
Jackson by and Through Whitaker v. Hertz Corp. (1991)
“The fact that it may be a crime to fail timely to redeliver a hired vehicle, § 817.52(3), Fla. Stat. (1985), should not alter the renter's tort responsibility even when, as in this case, it is used well beyond the period of the lease.”
Means v. State (2013)
“§ 817.52(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). The elements of grand theft are: (1) knowingly (2) obtaining or using, or endeavoring to obtain or use the property of another (3) with intent to deprive the person of a right to the property or to appropriate the property to one’s own use.”
Levine v. State (2003)
“Appellant was convicted in Broward County of a violation of section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes (2001), for failure to return a car she rented in Atlanta, Georgia.”
STATE OF FLORIDA v. ROBERT SAMPAIO (2020)
“155 to a prosecution under section 817.52—a separate and distinct statute.”
— 817.52(1) — 1 case
Means v. State (2013)
“§ 817.52(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). The elements of grand theft are: (1) knowingly (2) obtaining or using, or endeavoring to obtain or use the property of another (3) with intent to deprive the person of a right to the property or to appropriate the property to one’s own use.”
— 817.52(2) — 2 cases
Griffin v. State (2009)
Chagnon v. State (2014)
— 817.52(3) — 15 cases
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1994)
“On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal summarized the facts of this case as follows: The facts leading up to Mancusi's arrest on the criminal charges were in dispute; however, it appears that Mancusi rented a vehicle from Alamo believing that his contract entitled him to…”
Williams v. State (2011)
“See § 817.52(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). The trial court ordered petitioner held without bond following a failure to appear for a hearing.”
Simmons v. State (2013)
“Appellant was charged with, entered a plea to, and was sentenced for failure to redeliver a hired vehicle in violation of section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes (2009).”
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi (1992)
“Mancusi brought a malicious prosecution action against Alamo subsequent to the termination of a criminal case in which Mancusi was charged with and prosecuted for having violated section 817.52(3), Florida Statutes (1985), failure to redeliver a hired vehicle.”
Rios v. State (1995)
“§ 817.52(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because the failure to return elements fit within the grand theft elements it was error, constitutionally under the double jeopardy clauses, to convict appellant of both.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.