Isbell v. Credit Nation Lending Service, LLC
319 Ga. App. 19
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Isbells sued Credit Nation Lending Service, LLC and Credit Nation Auto Sales, LLC for fraud, breach of oral contract, FBPA, and TILA related to the purchase/financing of a used Ford Explorer.
- Isbells down payment was $3,500; remaining financed by CNLS under a 39-month plan with semi-monthly payments; TILA disclosures were generated and disclosed.
- Isbells did not receive a Carfax report before signing; vehicle later found to have frame damage; after purchase, Isbells complained about the vehicle's condition.
- Credit Nation attempted to replace the vehicle, provided loaners, and continued debit-card charges after Isbells asked to stop payments.
- Isbells alleged misrepresentation of vehicle condition, breach of oral promise to find a replacement, FBPA misrepresentation of entities, and TILA violations; Credit Nation moved for summary judgment; trial court granted CNLS summary judgment and denied Isbells' cross-motion.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Case No. A12A1360 and affirmed Case No. A12A1361.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposition exhibits ignored | Isbells claim deposition exhibits were ignored. | Credit Nation contends the record was complete and reliance proper. | No reversible error; record adequate; no harm shown. |
| Fraud/rescission due to frame damage and transmission issues | Isbells show CNLS knew frame damage and possibly transmission issues. | CNLS did not know of transmission problems; reliance questioned. | Frame-damage knowledge creates a jury issue; transmission issue fails; rescission not authorized due to lack of due diligence. |
| Oral contract for replacement vehicle; consideration and Statute of Frauds | Evidence shows consideration for replacement vehicle and enforceability despite lack of a written contract. | Promise lacked definite terms and violated Statute of Frauds. | There was consideration; terms sufficiently definite for enforceability; Statute of Frauds not fatal. |
| FBPA misrepresentation and use of multiple entities | Misrepresentation of vehicle condition and deceptive use of trade names violated FBPA. | No deceptive conduct; entity-name use not inherently deceptive. | FBPA misrepresentation claim fails due to lack of due diligence; entity-name claim rejected. |
| TILA bona fide error defense | CNLS violated TILA by misdescribing payment schedule. | Defense applies; errors were clerical; procedures reasonably adapted to avoid errors. | Bona fide error defense established; no TILA violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Silviano, 284 Ga. App. 278 (Ga. App. 2007) (burden to supplement record with discovery material; harm required for reversal)
- Tharp v. Vesta Holdings I, 276 Ga. App. 901 (Ga. App. 2005) (business records admissibility without personal knowledge of entries)
- Mitchell v. Backus Cadillac-Pontiac, 274 Ga. App. 330 (Ga. App. 2005) (knowledge of falsity may be inferred from post-sale inspection reports)
- Empire Distributors v. Hub Motors Co., 240 Ga. App. 568 (Ga. App. 1999) (buyers’ due diligence and reliance considerations in fraud)
- Lehman v. Keller, 297 Ga. App. 371 (Ga. App. 2009) (buyers failed to exercise due diligence; no rescission)
- Jackson v. Meadows, 153 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. App. 1980) (appointment of replacement vehicle and consideration sufficient despite lack of writing)
- Unique Designs v. Pittard Machinery Co., 200 Ga. App. 647 (Ga. App. 1991) (open terms in contract for sale still enforceable when intent evident)
- Martin v. Centre Point Investments, 310 Ga. App. 253 (Ga. App. 2011) (due diligence required for justifiable reliance in fraud cases)