Bcr Trucking, LLC v. Paccar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2008AP1196.,2008AP1196.
• Citation: 765 N.W.2d 828,2009 WI App 36
• Parties: BCR TRUCKING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACCAR, INC., Defendant-Respondent, Collins-Sorrentino, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

765 N.W.2d 828

2009 WI App 36

BCR TRUCKING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACCAR, INC., Defendant-Respondent Collins-Sorrentino, Inc., Defendant.

No. 2008AP1196.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs November 12, 2008.

Opinion Filed February 5, 2009.

On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Vincent

P. Megna and Susan M. Grzeskowiak of Jastroch & Labarge, S.C., Waukesha.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Joseph M. Fasi and Jean-Marie Feedham of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP, Milwaukee, and Mitchell S. Moser of Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J., DYKMAN and LUNDSTEN, JJ.

¶ 1 DYKMAN, J

BCR Trucking, LLC, appeals from an order granting summary judgment to PACCAR, Inc., in BCR's Lemon Law¹ action and a subsequent judgment ordering BCR to return the truck it purchased from PACCAR in exchange for the purchase amount less depreciation plus interest. BCR contends that PACCAR is not entitled to summary judgment because there are material factual issues as to whether PACCAR violated Wisconsin's Lemon Law. BCR also contends that the trial court erred in reducing the refund amount based on the truck's depreciation from the date PACCAR offered to replace it. We conclude that PACCAR is entitled to summary judgment on BCR's Lemon Law claim because the undisputed facts demonstrate that PACCAR met its statutory requirements. We further conclude that the trial court's decision to reduce the refund amount based on the truck's depreciation, and to add interest, adhered to the purpose of the Lemon Law and thus was not erroneous.

Background

¶ 2 The following facts are taken from the parties' summary judgment submissions. In July 2004, BCR purchased a truck manufactured by PACCAR for $103,500. In June 2006, BCR sent PACCAR a Lemon Law notice under WIS. STAT. § 218.0171, seeking a comparable replacement motor vehicle. PACCAR received BCR's Lemon Law notice on June 2, 2006.

¶ 3 On June 27, 2006, after PACCAR determined that BCR's truck was, in fact, a lemon, it notified BCR that it would provide BCR with a replacement vehicle. PACCAR informed BCR that the replacement vehicle would be at the dealership on June 30, 2006, and provided BCR with the vehicle's specifications. On June 30, 2006, BCR went to the dealership and viewed PACCAR's proposed replacement vehicle. BCR determined that, although the proposed truck was not identical to the original truck, it was an "acceptable" replacement. However, BCR did not attempt to take possession of the vehicle at that time.

¶ 4 BCR next contacted PACCAR on July 5, 2006, after thirty days from the notice had passed, and requested any documents that PACCAR would require to complete the exchange. BCR was unable to obtain any documents from PACCAR, but obtained them from the dealership two days later.² BCR refused to sign them, asserting that they violated Wisconsin's Lemon Law. The next day, PACCAR agreed to waive signing of the documents, and reiterated that the new truck was available to BCR. BCR did not take possession of the proffered replacement vehicle, but instead filed suit.

¶ 5 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to PACCAR, concluding that PACCAR had complied with the Lemon Law statute. BCR then moved for a money judgment on the basis that the parties agreed that the original truck was a lemon. The court entered a judgment requiring BCR to return the original truck and receive the purchase price less depreciation from the time PACCAR first offered the replacement, plus five percent interest for that time period. BCR appeals from the order and the judgment.

Standard of Review

¶ 6 "We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same methodology as the trial court." Kiss v. General Motors Corp., 2001 WI App 122, ¶ 9, 246 Wis.2d 364, 630 N.W.2d 742. Summary judgment is only proper when there are no issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Further, we interpret statutes independently from the trial court, aiming to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Id., ¶ 22.

Discussion

¶ 7 BCR argues that PACCAR is not entitled to summary judgment on BCR's Lemon Law claim because PACCAR violated the Lemon Law by requiring BCR to sign prohibited documents to receive a comparable vehicle.³ PACCAR responds that it complied with the Lemon Law by making available to BCR a comparable replacement vehicle within the required thirty days. We agree with PACCAR.

¶ 8 The following facts are undisputed: (1) BCR provided PACCAR notice under the Lemon Law requesting a comparable replacement vehicle and offering title to its "lemon"; (2) within thirty days, PACCAR notified BCR that it had available for BCR to pick up a comparable replacement vehicle; (3) within the thirty-day period, a representative of BCR inspected the vehicle and determined that the replacement was "acceptable";⁴ (4) the thirty-day period elapsed without BCR picking up the replacement vehicle or exchanging vehicles; (5) after the thirty-day time limit, PACCAR provided BCR with documents for BCR to sign or execute before picking up the replacement vehicle; (6) BCR objected to PACCAR's request regarding executing those documents, asserting that they were prohibited by the Lemon Law; and (7) the next day, PACCAR agreed to waive execution of the objectionable documents. BCR argues that, based on these facts, PACCAR violated the Lemon Law by requiring BCR to sign documents as a condition of receiving the replacement vehicle.⁵ We disagree.

¶ 9 Wisconsin's Lemon Law, WIS. STAT. § 218.0171, provides two requirements for consumers seeking statutory relief: "[T]hey must elect a remedy by demanding either a replacement vehicle or a refund, and they must offer to transfer title to the vehicle back to the manufacturer." Garcia v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 2004 WI 93, ¶ 1, 273 Wis.2d 612, 682 N.W.2d 365. Once the manufacturer receives that notice from the consumer, the manufacturer must "provide the consumer with a refund or a comparable new motor vehicle no later than thirty days after the consumer's offer" to avoid Lemon Law liability. Estate of Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 234, ¶ 5, 248 Wis.2d 193, 635 N.W.2d 635.

¶ 10 There is no dispute that if PACCAR had refused to provide a replacement vehicle within thirty days because BCR refused to sign prohibited documents, PACCAR would have violated the Lemon Law. This proposition is dictated by prior case law. See Chariton v. Saturn Corp., 2000 WI App 148, ¶ 1, 238 Wis.2d 27, 615 N.W.2d 209. Here, BCR argues that PACCAR required it to sign prohibited documents after the thirty-day period had elapsed, establishing that those documents were required throughout the thirty-day period, and thus PACCAR is in violation of the Lemon Law.

¶ 11 We first observe that BCR has not presented a developed argument demonstrating that the documents PACCAR sought to have BCR sign were "prohibited." Nonetheless, we will assume for the sake of argument only that the documents were prohibited. This assumption, however, does not benefit BCR.

¶ 12 BCR relies on Herzberg v. Ford Motor Co., 2001 WI App 65, 242 Wis.2d 316, 626 N.W.2d 67, and Chariton, 238 Wis.2d 27, 615 N.W.2d 209. We do not agree that either case supports BCR's contention that PACCAR has violated the Lemon Law on the facts before us.

¶ 13 In Chariton, 238 Wis.2d 27, ¶ 2, 615 N.W.2d 209, Chariton bought a car from Saturn that proved to be a lemon. She demanded a refund, and Saturn made her an offer, which included the requirement that Chariton sign a general release from liability. Id. Chariton responded with a revised settlement amount and a statement that she would not sign any documents not required under the Lemon Law. Id. The thirty-day period then passed, and Chariton sued Saturn for violating the Lemon Law. Id. Saturn moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had met the statutory requirements by making an offer within thirty days. Id.

¶ 14 We affirmed the trial court's denial of Saturn's motion, concluding "that the Lemon Law does not contemplate that the consumer be required to sign a general release in order to obtain a refund." Id., ¶ 5. We also said that Chariton's refusal to sign the release did not toll the thirty-day period, citing our holding in Church v. Chrysler Corp., 221 Wis.2d 460, 585 N.W.2d 685 (Ct.App.1998), that "a dispute between the consumer and the manufacturer about the amount of refund does not toll the thirty-day period in which the manufacturer must act." Chariton, 238 Wis.2d 27, ¶¶ 1, 5, 615 N.W.2d 209. Thus, we held "that regardless of the status of negotiations, the Lemon Law requires that the manufacturer provide a refund within thirty days or the Lemon Law has been violated." Id., ¶ 5.

¶ 15 The next year, we again considered Lemon Law damages after a manufacturer refused to provide a refund unless the consumer signed additional documents. In Herzberg, 242 Wis.2d 316, ¶¶ 1-2, 626 N.W.2d 67, the consumers demanded a refund of the purchase price of a vehicle that the parties agreed was a lemon. In response, Ford agreed to give a refund, but only if the Herzbergs signed certain documents, including a vehicle condition report. Id., ¶ 2. The Herzbergs refused to sign the vehicle condition report, and the parties commenced negotiations that went through the end of the thirty-day period. Id., ¶ 3. Because the thirty days passed and the Herzbergs did not receive a refund, they brought a Lemon Law case against Ford. Id., ¶¶ 1, 3.

¶ 16 We affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Herzbergs, concluding in light of Chariton that the Herzbergs were required only "to offer to return the title of the vehicle to the manufacturer and, once the refund was made, to return the vehicle and provide the manufacturer with the certificate of title and all endorsements...