Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc. v. Sims, 60439

• Decision Date: 08 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 60439,60439
• Citation: 12 Kan.App.2d 363,743 P.2d 1012
• Parties: FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. Steve A. SIMS, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SCHOLFIELD BROTHERS, INC., Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

Page 1012

743 P.2d 1012

12 Kan.App.2d 363

FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. Steve A. SIMS, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SCHOLFIELD BROTHERS, INC., Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.

No. 60439.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Oct. 8, 1987.

Review Denied Dec. 22, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Kansas Lemon Law (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 50-645) imposes liability only on the manufacturer of a nonconforming vehicle and not upon the authorized dealer.

2. The Kansas Lemon Law (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 50-645) does not apply to a true lease transaction.

Jon S. Womack, Wichita, for defendant/third-party plaintiff/appellant.

Broc E. Whitehead, Williamson, McGee, Griggs & DeMoss, Chartered, Wichita, for third-party defendant/appellee.

Before BRISCOE, P.J., and HARRY G. MILLER and FREDERICK WOLESLAGEL, District Judges Retired, Assigned.

HARRY G. MILLER, District Judge Retired, Assigned.

Steve Sims, the appellant, appeals from an order dismissing his third-party complaint against Scholfield Brothers, Inc., third-party defendant, in which Sims alleged that Scholfield, a car dealer, had violated the Kansas Lemon Law, K.S.A.1986 Supp. 50-645(c).

The facts are not in dispute. In April 1985, Sims entered into a lease agreement with Scholfield for a new car. Under the terms of the lease, Sims was required to make payments of $256.32 per month for 48 months, and to pay the cost of all insurance, taxes, and license fees on the car. At the end of the 48 months, the lease would expire and Sims would have the option of returning the car or purchasing the car for its fair market value of $5,004.72. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, after it was executed it was assigned to Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc., the plaintiff herein.

Sims drove the car for some three months and made his payments to Ford Motor as required. The car did not perform to Sims' satisfaction, however, and he returned it to Scholfield for repairs on several occasions. When the problems were not solved to his satisfaction, Sims abandoned the car at the offices of Ford Motor. Ford Motor treated the abandonment as a voluntary repossession and resold the car.

Ford Motor then filed this suit against Sims for the deficiency owed by him under the lease agreement. In defense of the action, Sims filed a third-party petition against Scholfield, claiming that Scholfield was liable to him for return of the "purchase price" of the car and for "collateral damages" under the provisions of the Kansas Lemon Law. The district court granted Scholfield's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It is from this dismissal that Sims has appealed.

Sims contends the Kansas Lemon Law should be construed liberally in harmony with the U.C.C. as a part of the State's consumer protection laws. When construed in that manner, he argues, his lease agreement was a consumer transaction covered by the act and, as such, the legislature intended the Lemon Law to afford protection against "the manufacturer, its agents or its authorized dealer." Scholfield contends the liability section of the Lemon Law affords relief only against the manufacturer of the vehicle and that Sims was not a "consumer" within the meaning of the statute. The issues are of first impression in this state.

K.S.A.1986 Supp. 50-645 provides:

"(a) As used in this act:

"(1) 'Consumer' means the original purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle; and

"(2) 'motor vehicle' means a new motor vehicle which is sold in this state, and which is registered for a gross weight of 12,000 pounds or less, and does not include the customized parts of motor vehicles which have been added or modified by second stage manufacturers, first stage converters or second stage converters as defined in K.S.A. 8-2401 and amendments thereto.

"(b) If a motor vehicle does not conform to all applicable warranties, and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer during the term of any warranties or during the period of one year following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever is the earlier date, the manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer shall make such repairs as are necessary to conform the vehicle to such warranties, notwithstanding the fact that such repairs are made after the expiration of any such term or such one-year period.

"(c) If the manufacturer, or its agents or authorized dealers, are unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall replace the motor vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle under warranty or accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase price including all collateral charges...." Emphasis added.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law and it is the function of the court to interpret the statute in order to give it the effect intended by the legislature. Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 455, 691 P.2d 1303 (1984). Where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, however, courts must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than...