Redhouse v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., 74-1190
| Decision Date | 08 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1190,74-1190 |
| Citation | 523 F.2d 1 |
| Parties | LITTLE REDHOUSE and Brady Tah, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Appellees, v. QUALITY FORD SALES, INC., a Utah Corporation, and Thomas E. Redd, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Dean E. Conder, of Nielson, Conder, Henriod & Gottfredson, Salt Lake City, Utah (Arthur H. Nielson, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief), for appellants.
James E. Doyle, DNA-People's Legal Services, Chinle, Ariz., (Eric P. Swenson, DNA-People's Legal Services, Mexican Hat, Utah, with him on the brief), for appellees.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, HILL, SETH, HOLLOWAY, McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.
Opinion on Rehearing En Banc
This appeal was heard initially by a panel of the court, and divergent views were expressed in the several opinions filed. A rehearing en banc was granted, and this opinion on rehearing constitutes the opinion of the court on appeal.
After a careful review of the record before this court, and the state of the record, it has been determined that it is necessary to remand the case to the trial court for consideration of several basic issues which appear not to have been resolved at trial or the resolution of which is not reflected in the record.
The first of these issues is whether or not the case is properly a class action. The trial judge expressed a conclusion that it would be considered as a class action, but the findings and determinations as to the elements of a class action as required by Rule 23 were not made, nor was the prescribed procedure followed, nor the proper sequence observed. Thus the question as to whether this should or should not be a class action must be properly determined on remand if the question is urged. See Sarasota Oil Co. v. Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp., 483 F.2d 450 (10th Cir.). We express no opinion on the issue.
We are unable to ascertain from the incomplete record before us whether or not the trial court was correct in holding that the truck purchase by the plaintiff Little Redhouse was within the coverage of the Truth in Lending Act. The fundamental matter as to whether an issue of material fact remained unresolved or not cannot be determined from the record, and thus the propriety of summary judgment as to this plaintiff must be examined on remand.
The matter of damages appears to be determined by the Truth in Lending Act itself and no showing of actual damages is required. There were amendments to the civil liability section of the Act (§ 130(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)) effective October 28, 1974, and referring also to class actions. See P.L. 93-495, § 706, 1 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, p. 1753. These amendments appear to be applicable to this action, and should be considered by the court on remand.
As to recovery under both the federal Act (15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)) and Utah law, there also have been some recent changes in the state law, the applicability of which must be determined. See Utah Code Anno. § 70B-5-203 as amended.
The facts relative to attorney fees,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Postow v. Oba Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...practices. Accord, Hinkle v. Rock Springs Nat'l Bank, 538 F.2d 295, 297 (10th Cir. 1976); cf. Little Redhouse v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., 523 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1975) (en banc ). Nevertheless, given the facts of this case, we conclude that the district court acted outside the range of it......
-
Dalton v. Bob Neill Pontiac, Inc.
...Act has been referred to by others as the "Lawyers' Relief Act." There is some truth in that. 16 But see Redhouse v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., 523 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1975) (en banc) 17 Defendant used the term "Total Time Balance" instead of "Total of Payments" as required by Regulation Z, § ......
-
Super Chief Credit Union v. Gilchrist
...interpreted the TILA more with equity in mind. In Redhouse v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., 511 F.2d 230, 237, rev'd on other grounds, 523 F.2d 1 (10th Cir.1975), the court held "although the Act should be strictly construed, it would not serve the cause of justice to enforce the Act so as to a......
-
Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co.
...damage award authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) bears no relation to the plaintiff's actual pecuniary loss, see Redhouse v. Quality Ford Sales, Inc., 523 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1975) (as modified on rehearing en banc), and the Truth in Lending Act now specifically provides for an award of damages......