Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Corgnati, 95-4402

• Decision Date: 22 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 95-4402,95-4402
• Citation: 715 So.2d 311
• Parties: 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1707 FORT LAUDERDALE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., d/b/a Lauderdale Imports, Ltd./BMW, Appellant, v. Jerry CORGNATI, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 311

715 So.2d 311

23 Fla. L. Weekly D1707

FORT LAUDERDALE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., d/b/a Lauderdale Imports, Ltd./BMW, Appellant, v. Jerry CORGNATI, Appellee.

No. 95-4402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

July 22, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1998.

A. Edward Quinton, III of Adams, Quinton & Fuller, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Stephen L. Shochet of Stephen L. Shochet, Boca Raton, for appellee.

SHAHOOD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a Final Judgment entered on appellee's Amended Complaint and appellant's Counterclaim in which the trial court found in favor of appellee on his claim for deceptive and unfair trade practices and against appellant on its claim under the Federal Odometer Act. We reverse and remand for a new trial on damages finding that the trial court did not apply the appropriate measure of damages under the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Further, we affirm the trial court's ruling against appellant on its counterclaim under the Federal Odometer Act.

The parties' claims arise from the purchase and sale of a used 1991 BMW 850 from appellant, Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury ("Lauderdale") by appellee, Jerry Corgnati ("Corgnati") and from Corgnati's trade-in of a 1990 Audi as part of the sales transaction.

Corgnati visited Lauderdale's showroom for the purpose of purchasing a used 1991 BMW 850, a limited production vehicle. After approximately a one week period, Corgnati inspected and test drove a used BMW 850. According to Corgnati, Lauderdale's salesman represented that the vehicle had never been in an accident or repainted and was in "showroom condition." Further, upon Corgnati's inquiry, the salesman represented that the car was equipped with a remote infrared opener to unlock the trunk and doors. While Corgnati was permitted to test drive the car, he never requested permission to bring the car to a mechanic for an inspection since the car still had its manufacturer's warranty and was only one year old. Notwithstanding, Corgnati proceeded with negotiations for the purchase of the BMW.

As part of the sales transaction, Corgnati traded in a 1990 Audi and a 1991 Mercedes Benz. Corgnati was given a $10,000 "positive equity credit," which was deducted from the purchase price of the BMW and a trade-in value of $55,000 for the Mercedes Benz and $20,000 for the Audi. Corgnati paid $5,000 and received financing for the balance due.

When Corgnati brought the BMW in for servicing, and complained that the infrared remote was inoperative, he was informed that the car was not equipped with that function. Corgnati informed both the salesman and the used car manager of this fact and was informed that the car was equipped with such a system and that the problem would be rectified. According to Corgnati, the problem was never rectified. Further after the purchase of the car, it was pointed out to Corgnati that the car had paint drips on two of its wheel and headlight openings. These repairs were corrected by Lauderdale under warranty.

Shortly thereafter, the used car manager contacted Corgnati regarding the odometer reading on the Audi. Upon wholesaling the Audi, it was discovered that there was no warranty and that the correct mileage could not be determined. As Lauderdale claimed this fact affected the trade-in value of the Audi, it wanted an additional $6,000 for the sale of the BMW. As a result, Corgnati stopped payment on the $5,000 check. After making two payments on the BMW, Corgnati, upon the advice of counsel, stopped making payments under the financing agreement. The lending institution that provided financing sued Corgnati, which resulted in the return of the BMW to the institution.

Subsequent thereto, Corgnati brought the BMW to an appraiser of damaged cars and antique automobiles, due to complaints with the car and the recent knowledge that the car had been repainted. Corgnati was informed that the car had been in a severe accident and had been repaired and repainted.

Corgnati filed a complaint against Lauderdale alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Lauderdale filed a counterclaim against Corgnati based upon the trade-in of the Audi as part of the purchase and sale of the BMW. Lauderdale asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Federal Odometer Act, alleging that Corgnati misrepresented the mileage on the Audi trade-in.

At the close of Corgnati's case, Lauderdale moved for directed verdict on the grounds that Corgnati had not established damages for his fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair trade practices counts. The trial court denied this motion as well as Lauderdale's renewed motion at the close of all the evidence. The trial court also denied Corgnati's motion for a directed verdict on Lauderdale's odometer counterclaim.

In its Final Judgment, the trial court, on Corgnati's Amended Complaint, ruled in favor of Lauderdale in count I for fraud and in favor of Corgnati in count II on the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices claim. On Lauderdale's counterclaim, the trial court ruled in favor of Corgnati on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, in favor of Lauderdale on its breach of contract claim and in favor of Corgnati on the Federal Odometer Act claim.

The trial court awarded damages to Corgnati as follows: $2,025.28 (two loan payments made to the lending institution); $17,884.50 for the Mercedes ($64,000 resale by Lauderdale minus $46.115.50 for Corgnati loan payoff); $5,268.59 for the Audi ($20,000 Buyer's Order value minus $14,731.41 for Corgnati loan payoff); and a setoff in favor of Lauderdale in the amount of $3,332.96, for a net judgment of $21,845.41.

The court awarded $2,000 in damages to Lauderdale on its breach of contract claim, thereby reducing the net judgment to $19,845.41. After awarding prejudgment interest in the amount of $7,704.45, the overall final net judgment in favor of Corgnati was $27,549.86.

In its first point on appeal, Lauderdale contends that Corgnati failed to provide the trial court with sufficient evidence to support his claim for damages under Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes. Lauderdale claims that in accordance with the Act, in order for the trial court to enter judgment on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices claim, the trial court needed some evidence to establish the value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was delivered. Specifically, Lauderdale argues there was no evidence presented in accordance with the Act which determined the diminished value of the car in order to determine Corgnati's actual damages.

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. § 501.204, Fla. Stat. (1993); see also Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Section 501.211(2), Florida Statutes (1993) provides for the following measure of damages when an individual action has been brought as a result of a violation of the Act:

In any individual action brought by a consumer who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of this part, such consumer may recover actual damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs as provided in s.501.2105; however, no damages, fees or costs shall be recoverable under...