State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co., 11036
Decision Date | 13 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 11036,11036 |
Citation | 386 N.W.2d 901 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota ex rel. Nicholas J. SPAETH, Attorney General, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EDDY FURNITURE CO., a North Dakota Corporation, d/b/a Eddy's Furniture, or Eddy's, Inc., Defendant, and William L. Peterson, a resident of Minnesota; and William L. Peterson Associates, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Allen C. Hoberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant.
Lundberg, Nodland, Lucas & Schulz, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees; argued by Ardell C. Tharaldson.
The State appeals from a district court judgment dismissing its action against William L. Peterson, individually, and William L. Peterson Associates, Inc. 1 We affirm.
In April 1983, Porter C. Eddy, president of Eddy Furniture Company [Eddy Furniture] employed Peterson 2 to conduct a going-out-of-business sale for Eddy Furniture's Jamestown store. The going-out-of-business sale lasted from June 5, 1983, to October 29, 1983, when Eddy Furniture closed its Jamestown store.
On the advice of Peterson, Eddy Furniture hired additional employees to assist with the sale and ordered substantial amounts of new furniture to be sold, along with its existing inventory, during the going-out-of-business sale. Included in the new furniture ordered was merchandise from factories and suppliers with which Eddy Furniture had not previously done business.
The sale was advertised in area newspapers as a "going-out-of-business" sale. Included in these advertisements were phrases such as: "Price crash"; "Forget any prices you have seen on Furniture!"; "Everything must be sold regardless of cost"; and, "It's panic selling."
The State commenced this action against Eddy Furniture and Peterson alleging that the content and manner of the advertising of the sale and the operation of the sale itself constituted violations of Chapter 51-12, N.D.C.C. [False Advertising], and Chapter 51-15, N.D.C.C. [Consumer Fraud and Unlawful Credit Practices]. Following dismissal of the State's complaint against Eddy Furniture, the State and Peterson entered into a stipulation of facts. Both sides subsequently moved for summary judgment, and the trial court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment dismissing the State's action against Peterson. The parties agree on appeal that the trial court drew inferences from the stipulated facts and that our review of the factual issues is therefore governed by Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. 3
The following issues are raised on appeal:
1) In a consumer protection or false advertising claim based upon fraud, must the State prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence?
2) Were the trial court's findings clearly erroneous?
Initially, we must determine the appropriate evidentiary standard to be applied in a proceeding brought by the State alleging a violation of the consumer fraud or false advertising statutes, where the claim is based upon alleged fraudulent conduct. Peterson contends that the fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence; the State contends that only a preponderance of the evidence is required. Although not specifically addressing this issue, it appears from the record that the trial court applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, rather than the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
The issue presented is one of first impression in this court. Although we have acknowledged that, in general, an allegation of fraud in a civil case must be proved by evidence which is clear and convincing, e.g., Russell Land Co. v. Mandan Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 377 N.W.2d 549, 552 (N.D.1985), we have not previously applied that standard to the special circumstances presented by a consumer fraud or false advertising case. There appears to be a split among the various jurisdictions which have considered the issue. See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 136 Ariz. 338, 343-44, 666 P.2d 83, 88-89 (Ct.App.1983) ( ); Smith v. Baldwin, 611 S.W.2d 611, 616 (Tex.1980) ( ). But see Munjal v. Baird & Warner, Inc., 138 Ill.App.3d 172, 182-184, 92 Ill.Dec. 809, 818-819, 485 N.E.2d 855, 864-865 (1985) ( ); Deer Creek Construction Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 412 So.2d 1169, 1173 (Miss.1982) ( ).
The clearest analysis on the issue has been provided by the Court of Appeals of Arizona, in Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., supra, 136 Ariz. at 343-44, 666 P.2d at 88-89:
We agree with the reasoning of the Arizona court. We also note that it is generally recognized that consumer protection statutes are remedial in nature, and therefore must be liberally construed in favor of protecting consumers. E.g., State v. First National Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d 406, 412 (Alaska 1982); Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc., 39 Conn.Supp. 78, ----, 468 A.2d 951, 953 (Super.Ct.1983); Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 69, 494 A.2d 804, 811 (1985); Joseph v. PPG Industries, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex.Ct.App.1984). In light of the strong public policy underpinnings of our false advertising and consumer fraud statutes, Chapters 51-12 and 51-15, N.D.C.C., we hold that when an action brought under either chapter is based upon allegations of fraudulent conduct the "clear and convincing evidence" standard does not apply; the alleged fraudulent conduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
The State contends on appeal that the trial court erred when it found that the advertising used to promote the going-out-of-business sale and the operation of the sale itself were not deceptive or fraudulent. The State alleges that Peterson violated Sections 51-12-01, 51-12-08, and 51-15-02, N.D.C.C., which provide:
The State's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Pork Antitrust Litig., Civil Nos. 18-1776
...the question of concealment as a required element of a consumer-protection claim under state law. See State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co. , 386 N.W.2d 901, 905 (N.D. 1986) (upholding dismissal of a consumer-protection claim only because it was not clearly erroneous). The court below ......
-
Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.
...must allege fraudulent or deceptive conduct to maintain a North Dakota consumer protection claim. See State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co., 386 N.W.2d 901, 905 n. 5 (affirming trial court's determination that the conduct at issue in the case was not fraudulent or deceitful, and theref......
-
In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust
...that the conduct in this case was not fraudulent or deceitful, and therefore not violative of Chapter[ ] ... 51-15." 386 N.W.2d 901, 905 n. 5 (N.D.1986). I conclude that a plaintiff must allege fraudulent or deceptive conduct to maintain a North Dakota consumer protection claim, based on th......
-
Southeast Cass Water Resource Dist. v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 525 N.W.2d 691 (N.D.1994), legislative inaction is rarely helpful. In State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co., 386 N.W.2d 901, 904 (N.D.1986), we held a later Legislature's defeat of an amendment on the subject cannot evidence what a prior Legislature ......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...2683 The North Dakota Supreme Court has stated that the “does not bar” clause “authorizes a 2678. State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furn. Co., 386 N.W.2d 901, 903 (N.D. 1986). 2679. N.D. CENT.CODE § 51-15-03. 2680. Id. § 51-12-09. 2681. Id. 2682. Id. 2683. Id. § 51-15-09; see Hanson v. Accelerat......
-
Table of Cases
...1080 State ex rel. Richmond Am. Homes of W. Va. v. Sanders, 717 S.E.2d 909 (W. Va. 2011), 1179 State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furn. Co., 386 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 1986), 1054 State ex rel . Webster v. Areaco Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988), 974 State ex rel. Webster v. Milbourn, 759 S......
-
North Dakota
...whether private or governmental, must be commenced within four years after the claim for 23. State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furn. Co., 386 N.W.2d 901, 903 (N.D. 1986). 24. N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-15-03. 25. Id. § 51-12-09. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. 938 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 2020). 29. Id. at 141. 30. Staal......