Dixon Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Walters

• Decision Date: 06 June 1975
• Citation: 122 Cal.Rptr. 202,48 Cal.App.3d 964
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DIXON MOBILE HOMES, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. Harold L. WALTERS, Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant. Civ. 14434.

Page 202

122 Cal.Rptr. 202

48 Cal.App.3d 964

DIXON MOBILE HOMES, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. Harold L. WALTERS, Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

Civ. 14434.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

June 6, 1975.

Baird B. McKnight, Quincy, for plaintiff, cross-defendant, appellant and cross-respondent.

Dennis B. Cavanagh, San Francisco, for defendant, cross-complainant, respondent and cross-appellant.

EVANS, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant (hereafter appellant) appeals from an adverse judgment in favor of defendant and cross-complainant (hereafter respondent). The trial of the action was bifurcated; the court without a jury considered the question of whether to apply Nevada or California law, and a jury thereafter heard evidence and rendered a verdict on appellant's complaint for recovery of personal property and damages and respondent's cross-complaint seeking rescission, restitution, and compensatory and exemplary damages. The trial court ruled that California law, specifically sections 2981 to 2984.4 of the Civil Code and the Rees-Levering Act, was applicable to the disputed transaction. After applying the Rees-Levering Act, the court, on respondent's claim for rescission, awarded judgment for him in the amount of $7,339.70, attorney's fees in the sum of $750, court costs of $595.50, and possession of the mobile home to appellant.

The jury thereafter awarded respondent $2,320 compensatory damages and $2,500 punitive damages.

The trial court made appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment against appellant accordingly. The appeal comes to us on the clerk's transcript only. On such an appeal, the findings are not subject to challenge, and it must be presumed that the evidence supports the findings. (Associated Creditors' Agency v. Dunning Floor Covering, Inc. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 558, 559, 71 Cal.Rptr. 494; Globe Indem. Co. v. State of California (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 745, 118 Cal.Rptr. 75.) We are thus limited to a review of the judgment, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the pleadings. (Millbrae Ass'n for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222, 226, 69 Cal.Rptr. 251.)

The undisputed facts as disclosed by the clerk's transcript indicate that respondent was a resident of California, and appellant corporation was a mobile home dealer with its principal place of business in the State of Nevada. In March of 1967, in Nevada, respondent entered into a purchase order agreement with appellant for the purchase of a mobile home. The agreement provided for payment of California sales tax, licensing and registration fees. The financing provisions of the purchase order document were left blank, and failed to contain the warnings and statement of buyer's rights and liabilities required by subsection 10 of subdivision (a) of section 2982 of the California Civil Code. ¹ In May 1967, respondent and appellant executed a conditional sales contract for the actual purchase of the mobile home. The contract form was signed in blank by respondent, and he did not receive a copy of the document. The conditional sales contract failed to contain the warning language required by subsection 10 of subdivision (a) of section 2982 of the Civil Code. Appellant agreed to deliver and place the mobile home on respondent's property in Blairsden, California. The delivery and installation were accomplished. Respondent thereafter made payments on the contract by mail from California. A number of the payments were late but accepted until March 1971. At that time agents and employees of appellant, without permission of respondent, entered on respondent's property in California, intending to repossess the mobile home. They made forcible entry into the home, split it, and in the process drove trucks and other heavy vehicles upon the respondent's property, causing substantial damage. Respondent arrived at his home during the attempted repossession process and ordered the appellant's employees and agents to leave without the mobile home. They complied. Appellant thereafter filed a complaint for claim and delivery in Plumas County to recover possession of the mobile home and for a deficiency judgment. Respondent answered and cross-complained for trespass to chattel and real property, forcible entry and detainer, conversion, misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the California Rees-Levering Act requiring rescission and restitution. (Fn. 1, Ante pp. 204--205.)

On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred in applying California law to the disputed contract; (2) the conditional sales contract executed in May 1967 was, in fact, a novation of the earlier March purchase agreement; (3) punitive damages were improperly awarded; (4) the record does not support the award of compensatory damages; and (5) attorney's fees were erroneously awarded.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal taken on the clerk's transcript, we may dispose of appellant's novation, punitive damage, and compensatory damage contentions summarily. Each of those asserted grounds for reversal involves issues requiring evidentiary review. It is elemental that on a judgment roll appeal, the appellate court must conclusively presume that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings, and that the only questions presented are as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether the findings support the judgment. (Millbrae Ass'n for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae, supra, 262 Cal.App.2d 222, 69 Cal.Rptr. 251; City of Los Angeles v. Ricards (1973) 10 Cal.3d 385, 390, 110 Cal.Rptr. 489, 515 P.2d 585; Bristow v. Morelli (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 894, 898, 76 Cal.Rptr. 203.) The court in Kompf v. Morrison (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 284, 288, 166 F.2d 350, 353, on a judgment roll appeal dealing with similar contentions stated, 'Grave miscarriages of justice would result if an appellant was permitted to argue factual questions on such an appeal.' Each of the mentioned contentions requires a review of the facts presented if a determination contrary to the trial courts is to be made. The contentions accordingly are rejected.

Attorney's fees were awarded respondent pursuant to the provisions of the California Rees-Levering Act. (Fn. 1, Ante pp. 204--205.) Their propriety is dependent upon the resolution of plaintiff's principal contention that the court erred in applying California law to the contract.

CHOICE OF LAW

Respondent argues that inasmuch as we are considering a judgment roll appeal, we are precluded from deciding the conflict of law issue as well as the others. The argument is without merit. Choice of law cases must be decided by considering factors or contacts with the states involved; in this case, all of those factors or contacts are a part of the clerk's transcript which contains the findings of fact. ² (Bernkrant v. Fowler (1961) 55 Cal.2d 588, 12 Cal.Rptr. 266, 360 P.2d 906.)

Respondent at all times pertinent was a resident of California; appellant was incorporated in and had its principal place of business in Nevada; the contracts were signed in Nevada; respondent made payments by mail from California to Nevada; and the appellant delivered the mobile home to respondent in California. The court, after considering these factors, applied the California Rees-Levering Act to the sale of the mobile home.

Section 97.175 et seq., of the Nevada Revised Statutes ³ are also regulatory of transactions of the type involved. However, they do not provide the specific remedies of the Rees-Levering Act. The Rees-Levering Act, designed to protect buyers from abusive and unethical practices of motor vehicle sellers and dealers, goes further and provides the relief of restitution and rescission to the purchaser.

The Legislature is ordinarily concerned with enacting laws to govern purely local transactions. In this instance it has not defined the extent to which the Rees-Levering Act is to apply to contracts having substantial contacts with the other states. Accordingly, the scope of the act must be determined in the light of applicable principles of conflict of law decisions. (Bernkrant v. Fowler, supra, 55 Cal.2d 588, 594, 12 Cal.Rptr. 266, 360 P.2d 906.) The factual situation presented is complex, involving multi-state contacts. In such situations, no single state alone can be deemed to have the exclusive governing rights. (Reich v. Purcell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 551, 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727.) In recognition of this principle, California now follows a methodology characterized as the 'governmental interest' approach to choice of law problems. (Kasel v. Remington Arms Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 711, 730, 101 Cal.Rptr. 314.) Applying this method, the forum must search to find the proper law to apply based upon the interests of the litigants and the involved states. (Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727.) With the governmental interest approach, 'relevant contacts' stressed by the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws ⁴ are not disregarded but are examined in connection with the analysis of the interest of the involved state in the issues, the character of the contract and the relevant purposes of the contract law under consideration. (Kasel v. Remington Arms Co., supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 731, 101 Cal.Rptr. 314.) The forum must consider all the foreign and domestic elements and interests involved in the case to determine the applicable rule. (Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 555, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727.) As we view the application of the foregoing guidelines to the issues presented, it is clear the trial court correctly applied California rather than Nevada law. The protection of California consumers from abusive and deceptive sellers, whether local or foreign, is an important subject for protection by California. The California consumer is harmed as much by...