PG County Court Awards $60K in Favor of Dealer

PG County Court Awards $60K in Favor of Dealer Case Sets Precedent Against Multiple, Groundless Complaints

In a particularly noteworthy ruling for area dealers, Judge Thomas P. Smith of the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County, Maryland, issued an order on February 7 that awarded $59,881 in sanctions against a plaintiff in favor of a WANADA member dealer in what appears to be a helpful man bites dog result.

The case, which was handled by Brad Weiss of Charapp, Deese & Weiss, LLP, is interesting since it was levied against a consumer who earlier had successfully obtained a verdict against the dealer. It also provides an example of what can be done by a dealer faced with multiple baseless allegations unrelated to the customer’s original complaint to try to force a settlement.

The plaintiff in this case filed the lawsuit against a Toyota dealer based upon her purchase of a Toyota Corolla in June 1994. She claimed to have paid a higher interest rate than appeared in a flyer distributed by the dealership. Through her lawyer, the plaintiff not only filed a lawsuit complaining of the interest rate, but she also filed allegations of fraud claiming that the car purchased was actually used, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, false imprisonment, and a number of other claims unrelated to the interest rate.

Seven counts were dismissed prior to trial. Three counts were considered by the jury, which found that the dealership was liable for one count of violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act for charging a higher interest rate than the rate advertised in the flyer and awarded damages equal to the difference between the interest rate charged and the advertised interest rate, plus attorney’s fees.

However, the dealer sought sanctions against the plaintiff for the remaining claims brought in bad faith and without any substantial justification. The court found the plaintiff made four claims without basis: (1) conspiracy to commit fraud; (2) violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act for the sale of a used car as a new car; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) false imprisonment. The court originally sanctioned the plaintiff by reducing her attorney’s fee award. Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the plaintiff appealed.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that the case should be remanded for further findings in connection with the sanctions against the plaintiff. After repeated and contentious hearings, the Circuit Court ruled that sanctions of $59, 881 should be awarded to the dealership against the plaintiff.

The amount awarded maybe used as a setoff against any claims for attorney’s fees sought by the plaintiff. It fully offsets the attorney’s fee award to the plaintiff, with interest, leaving a balance owing to the dealership by the plaintiff! The order prohibits the dealer from attaching assets of the plaintiff to recover any balance, but the unsatisfied judgment will remain on the public record if it is not paid.

The case sets an important precedent for dealers, said Mike Charapp of Charapp, Deese & Weiss, LLP. A classic tactic of attorneys representing plaintiffs in cases against car dealers is to over-plead and to charge the dealers with horrific wrongdoing. This dealership fought hard to combat that tactic, and it has paid off.