DEEDRA L. BOWEN VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICAÂ Â (L-6224-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4188-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Bowen bought a new Hyundai Sonata that had recurring defects despite multiple repairs during the warranty period.
- Through counsel Bowen demanded repurchase under the UCC and Magnuson‑Moss, sought attorney's fees, and submitted to Hyundai's BBB Auto Line informal dispute program (per warranty requirement).
- The non‑binding BBB arbitrator awarded Bowen a repurchase; Bowen rejected that award and filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court asserting Magnuson‑Moss, UCC, and Lemon Law claims.
- After discovery and on the eve of arbitration, the parties stipulated to a court Lemon Law repurchase; the stipulation left counsel fees for the court to decide.
- The trial court denied Bowen's request for attorney's fees, reasoning she obtained equivalent relief in the BBB process and that her litigation produced no substantive success beyond generating fees; Bowen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a consumer who rejects a non‑binding Magnuson‑Moss/BBB award and obtains a Lemon Law repurchase in court is a "prevailing party" entitled to mandatory attorney's fees under N.J. Lemon Law | Bowen: Rejecting a BBB award and obtaining a court repurchase makes her a prevailing party; Lemon Law's "shall" entitlement to fees applies | Hyundai: Because Bowen got essentially the same relief in the BBB arbitration, she did not achieve success in litigation and should not recover court‑awarded fees; allowing fees will undermine informal programs | Court: Bowen is a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under the Lemon Law; the trial court erred in denying fees because settlement in court materially altered parties' relations and conferred relief sought |
| Whether attorney's fees incurred in the BBB proceeding are recoverable in the Lemon Law action | Bowen: Fees for all efforts related to the dispute should be recoverable | Hyundai: BBB proceedings do not permit attorney's fees; allowing those fees would contradict Magnuson‑Moss/FTC rules | Court: Fees incurred for the BBB proceeding are not recoverable; fee award should exclude work related to the informal dispute resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Packard‑Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (appellate review of fee awards is highly deferential)
- Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (guidelines for determining reasonable attorney's fees)
- Fedor v. Nissan, 432 N.J. Super. 303 (discussing Magnuson‑Moss, FTC Rule 703, and nonbinding nature of informal dispute procedures)
- Casal v. Hyundai Motor America, 436 N.J. Super. 296 (consumer entitled to counsel fees when counsel necessary to obtain full Lemon Law relief)
- Warrington v. Village Supermarket, Inc., 328 N.J. Super. 410 (definition of prevailing party and effect of settlement on fee claims)
- Aponte‑Correa v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 N.J. 318 (statutory "shall" language mandates fee awards)
Result: Reversed and remanded for calculation of a reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Lemon Law, excluding time spent on the BBB arbitration.