Gary Collins v. A1 Motors LLC
330839
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- A1 Motors purchased a 2001 BMW at auction in Jan 2012 (odometer shown as ~105,091) and sold it to Gary Collins on April 16, 2012; Collins paid ~$13,802 (finance raised total cost higher).
- Pre-2012 BMW service records from BMW of Annapolis (Jan & Apr 2011) reflected mileage over 235,000–240,000; a CARFAX report flagged a potential odometer rollback.
- Auction paperwork showed earlier transfers with odometer readings of ~105,061 and 105,091; some auction ODS sections were unsigned and some earlier titles noted an exemption from mileage disclosure.
- Collins alleged intentional and negligent/innocent misrepresentation and violations of the MCPA, focusing primarily on the Odometer Disclosure Statement (ODS) and nondisclosures about the car’s condition/history.
- The trial court granted A1’s summary disposition motion and awarded sanctions to A1 after Collins’s deposition showed he purchased the car “as is” and lacked personal knowledge of seller fraud; the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal but vacated sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Collins' Argument | A1's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "as‑is" sale bars fraud/ misrepresentation claims | As‑is clause was added after signing and cannot shield A1 from fraud; fraud can overcome as‑is | The sale was "as‑is," precluding warranty/representation claims | As‑is does not bar fraud claims, but here evidence did not create genuine issue of A1’s knowledge of odometer inaccuracy; summary disposition for A1 affirmed |
| Whether ODS statement ("105,091 to best of knowledge") was a false representation actionable as fraud | The odometer reading was false (service records/CARFAX >200,000); A1 must have known or should have known | The ODS was qualified ("to best of knowledge") and there is no evidence A1 knew it was false | Plaintiff needed to show both falsity and seller knowledge; record lacked evidence A1 knew of the >200,000 entries; misrepresentation claims fail |
| Whether omissions and other statements violated the MCPA (excess price, "special" vehicle, failure to disclose defects/history) | A1 hid material facts (unsigned ODS, title exemptions, prior damage/repairs, timing repairs) and charged grossly excessive price or made material misrepresentations | Comments like "special" were puffery; signed title back and auction/exempt notations were observable; plaintiff offered no evidence of materiality | MCPA claims fail: no actionable price claim in complaint, "special" was puffery, omissions were not shown to be material or tied to a positive misrepresentation |
| Whether sanctions were warranted (MCR 2.114; MCL 600.2591) | Plaintiff offered circumstantial evidence and had reasonable basis; deposition later narrowed facts but initial claims were nonfrivolous | A1 argued claims lacked evidentiary support and sought fees after deposition showed no personal-knowledge basis | Trial court erred to find claims frivolous; sanctions based on later deposition and demand letter were improper; sanctions vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly, 417 Mich. 17 (1982) ("as is" clause does not preclude fraud rescission)
- Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Richco Construction, Inc., 489 Mich. 265 (2011) (elements of intentional misrepresentation)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (documentary evidence considered on summary disposition must show admissible substance)
- Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich. App. 261 (1999) (materiality under the MCPA must affect consumer's decision)
- Kitchen v. Kitchen, 465 Mich. 654 (2002) (frivolous‑action standard and appellate review for clear error)