Chrysler Financial Co., L.L.C. v. Flynn
| Decision Date | 26 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 24546.,24546. |
| Citation | 88 S.W.3d 142 |
| Parties | CHRYSLER FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. William E. FLYNN, Jr., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Respondent, and Grace A. Flynn, Counterclaimant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Nelson L. Mitten and Norbert Glassl, Riezman Berger, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Grant Q. Haden and Randy R. Cowherd, Haden, Cowherd, Bullock & McGinnis, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondents.
Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. ("CFC") appeals from a judgment entered in accordance with verdicts reached following jury trial in favor of William E. Flynn, Jr. ("Bill") on CFC's petition for replevin and Bill's counterclaim counts for trespass, conversion, and breach of contract, and in favor of Bill's wife, Grace A. Flynn ("Grace"), on her counterclaim count for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In addition to compensatory damages on the counterclaims, the jury awarded punitive damages on the trespass claim. CFC raises eleven points of alleged error.1
The Flynns relocated from Massachusetts to a farm in Wright County, Missouri in August, 1997. They moved primarily because of vandalism and verbal abuse they encountered from surrounding residents who were displeased that the Flynns' Massachusetts livestock and farming operations were in close proximity to a residential development.
On the Missouri farm, Grace raised various animals, although it was mostly to occupy her time and that of the children because she and Bill did not make any profit from their farming activities. Bill worked as an over-the-road truck driver, and would sometimes be gone for five or six weeks at a time. The Flynns had an older Ford one-ton truck with a dump body that Grace used when taking care of the animals. They also had an older Dodge vehicle with 186,000 miles.
They decided to purchase a new truck with a dump body that would serve the farm-related purposes of the Ford truck, as well as be their "new car, dependable transportation" to use to go shopping, run errands, attend 4-H and church activities, or transport children to and from school. Grace estimated that the new truck was used ninety percent for family transportation and ten percent for the dump body.
During a trip back to Massachusetts, Bill found a suitable truck at Donahue Dealership ("the dealer") and final arrangements to purchase the truck were made after Bill returned to Missouri. Before going back to Massachusetts to retrieve the truck, Bill obtained 12,000 pound gross limit farm license tags, which he understood would allow the use of the truck for household and family purposes. The truck purchased was a 1997 one-ton Dodge with 4-wheel drive, a dump body, and a trailer hitch.
Bill completed a credit application for the purchase of the truck, on which his occupation was listed as farmer. On the subsequent retail installment contract, the use of the truck was designated as agricultural; neither the personal or business categories were checked. According to Bill, the sales manager at the dealer marked that box while Bill was not in the room.
The contract, which the dealer assigned to CFC, included the following provisions.
[Section] G. Remedies Upon Default. .... Creditor has the right to take possession of the Vehicle. Creditor may, without the use of force or other breach of the peace, with the consent of Buyer given at the time of entry, enter the premises where the Vehicle may be and take immediate possession of the Vehicle including any equipment or accessories. If the premises where the Vehicle may be is owned or rented by or to you, Creditor may not enter such premises to take possession without your contemporaneous consent.
. . . .
[Section] H. Assignment. You acknowledge that this contract will be assigned to [CFC] ("Assignee"). You further acknowledge that Assignee will acquire all of Creditor's interest in this contract and in the Vehicle and will be entitled to all of the rights and remedies granted to Creditor pursuant to the terms and conditions of this contract including, but not limited to, the right to receive all payments and to require the performance of all obligations required by this contract.
. . . .
[Section] K. Governing Law. This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Massachusetts except, if the Vehicle is repossessed, then the law of the state where the Vehicle is repossessed will govern the repossession. Repossession effected through legal process will be governed by the laws of the state in which such process is brought.
. . . .
WARRANTIES WE DISCLAIM. You agree that you are buying the Vehicle "AS IS" and that there are no implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or other warranties, express or implied, covering the vehicle unless: 1. the vehicle is of a type normally used for personal, family or household purposes, and 2 the vehicle was manufactured after July 3, 1975, and 3. we have given you our written warranty or service contract covering the vehicle on the date of this contract covering the vehicle on the date of this contract or within 90 days after such date.
The preceding NOTICE applies to goods and services obtained primarily for personal, family or household use.
When Bill retrieved the vehicle, the dealer presented him with a warranty booklet, which included information on warranties provided by Chrysler Corporation (as distinguished from Chrysler Finance Corporation or CFC, the party to these proceedings). Among the warranties provided was a basic coverage warranty for three years or 36,000 miles. Under the basic warranty, Chrysler Corporation agreed to cover
the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any defective item on your truck — that is, defective in material, workmanship, or factory preparation. There is no list of covered parts since the only exception is tires. You pay nothing for these repairs. These warranty repairs, or adjustments — including all parts and labor connected with them — will be made by your dealer at no charge, using new or remanufactured parts.
The warranty booklet provided by the dealer also included a section on the buyer's legal rights under the warranties, which included the following information.
The warranties contained in this booklet are the only express warranties that Chrysler [Corporation] makes for your truck. These warranties give you specific legal rights.
You may also have other rights that vary from state to state. For example, you may have some implied warranties, depending on the state where your truck is registered:
• An "implied warranty of merchantability" means that your truck is reasonably fit for the general purpose for which it was sold.
• An "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" means that your truck is suitable for your special purposes if those special purposes were specifically disclosed to Chrysler [Corporation] itself — not merely to the dealer — before your purchase.
These implied warranties are limited, to the extent allowed by law, to the time periods covered by the express written warranties contained in this booklet.
If you use your truck primarily for business or commercial purposes, then these implied warranties do not apply and Chrysler [Corporation] completely disclaims them to the extent allowed by law.
In January, 1998, an incident occurred in which the truck was damaged. While Grace was emptying the truck, she heard a loud noise, at which time she stopped dumping the contents of the truck. Further investigation showed that the tailgate had "bound up against the hitch[,]" causing damage to the subframe, tailgate, and tailgate mechanism, and bending the frame of the truck. According to Grace, she had been operating the dump mechanism with the tailgate down after having removed the top pins. Bill testified that if the trailer hitch had been installed an inch higher, the incident would not have occurred.
Bill contacted the dealer, but they refused to repair the vehicle. Bill then took the truck to Morse Manufacturing ("Morse"), the company that had installed the dump body for the dealer, for repair. Morse repaired the vehicle so that it was useable, but did not repair it completely. Neither the dealer nor Morse were willing to cover the cost of the repairs and associated expenses, which Bill calculated at $12,375.
Between April, 1998, and April, 2000, Bill contacted both Chrysler Corporation and CFC on several occasions. He sought reimbursement for expenses related to the repairs, which he indicated he would accept as a credit to his account with CFC, as well as either complete correction of what he termed a defect in the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle.
Chrysler Corporation sent a letter denying any warranty claim. CFC informed Bill that his only recourse was through the dealer or Chrysler Corporation, because CFC was only the holder of the note and, therefore, was not responsible for any warranty claim on the vehicle. CFC considered itself separate from Chrysler Corporation and the Chrysler dealer from which Bill purchased the vehicle. CFC also advised Bill to continue making payments; otherwise his credit would be affected. Bill's last payment to CFC was in April, 2000.
Also in April, 2000, Bill wrote a letter to the sheriff of Wright County, informing him that CFC had threatened to repossess the vehicle and that the contract prohibited CFC from entering his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del. River Waterfront Corp. v. Wellspring Software, Inc.
...the act would not represent a tort, the mere breach of the contract will not create tort liability. Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C. v. Flynn, 88 S.W.3d 142, 151 (Mo. App. 1995) (citing Khulusi v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Mo.App.1995)). [29] Missouri also applies the parol......
-
Mo. Ozarks Radio, Network, Inc. v. Luke Baugh, & JGR Techs., LLC
...that "Missouri has never recognized a mere breach of contract as providing the basis for tort liability." Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C. v. Flynn , 88 S.W.3d 142, 151 (Mo. App. 2002). "It is the act itself that serves as the basis of any tort liability, not the breach." Id . "If the act, indepen......
-
Crozier v. Wint
...of the obligation or obligations secured.” § 400.9–102 RSMo cmt. 7. This determination is fact-based. See Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C. v. Flynn, 88 S.W.3d 142, 150 (Mo.App.2002) (“We find that the determination of whether a vehicle is a consumer good is a fact intensive issue; such issues are ......
-
U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. v. Midwest Division-RMC, LLC, No. WD 70122 (Mo. App. 3/2/2010)
...verdict director applicable to situations where both the terms of the contract and the breach are at issue," Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Flynn, 88 S.W.3d 142, 154 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002).3 The jury found for USN and awarded the amount in USN's final spreadsheet, Page 4 RMC then moved in the alternati......
-
Defining "breach of the Peace" in Self-help Repossessions
...the car is a breach of the peace). 180. See, e.g.,In re Gerber, 51 B.R. 526, 528 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1985); Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Flynn, 88 S.W.3d 142, 147-52 (Mo. Ct. App. 181. See, e.g., Chapa v. Traciers and Assocs., 267 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008). 182. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v......