SCHAUER v. G.M.A.C., 4D01-357 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 6-26-2002)

POLEN, C.J.

We deny Appellant's motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification, and accordingly write to clarify that portion of the original opinion wherein we state that "forging his signature to the credit application would have no legal efficacy because he was not obligated to sign or make payments. . . ." We neither hold nor imply that there is no legal efficacy to an automotive dealership's forgery of a credit application. We hold that the document at issue in this case has no legal efficacy as to the Appellant. As a result, Appellant cannot support a forgery allegation. See, e.g., Zurstrassen v. Stonier, 786 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.