Mejias Vializ v. State
The First DCA affirmed Mejias Vializ's conviction for failure to return leased property, holding that the lease agreement's addition of the words 'after written demand' did not invalidate the statutory warning language required under section 812.155(6). However, the court reversed the restitution order, holding that the trial court erred by basing restitution on the full completed-contract price rather than fair market value, since the lease-to-own structure allowed early return without owing the full purchase price, making the contract price a windfall to the victim.
Key facts
- Mejias Vializ was charged with failure to return leased property under a lease-to-own agreement that contained statutory warning language with an added requirement of 'written demand' before the property became subject to criminal charges.
- The trial court convicted Mejias Vializ and ordered restitution based on the full completed lease-to-own contract price, which would have been owed only if the lease ran to completion.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision gives practitioners a concrete application of the Tolbert/Hawthorne restitution framework to lease-to-own consumer contracts, clarifying that a store cannot recover the full contract balance as restitution… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.