Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 655
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Peel bought a used car from Car Time, financed by CAC, but never received the title.
- GAAC held the title as Floor Plan Bank and allegedly failed to deliver title to Peel; CAC purportedly controlled the process and collection after sale.
- Peel attempted registration, incurred penalties, and sought relief for MPA violations against CAC (Car Time was defaulted and not participating).
- CAC repeatedly told Peel the title issue was not CAC’s problem and pressured ongoing payments via an ignition device, threatening repossession and credit reporting.
- Missouri law on void sales where title isn’t delivered informed the case; trial court entered jury verdict for Peel against CAC, then reduced punitive damages to the statutory cap; CAC appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, addressing jury instructions, post-trial rulings, and punitive damages as applied under § 510.265.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAC's conduct was 'in connection with' the sale under the MPA | Peel argues CAC was connected to the sale as assignee, financer, and active participant, making MPA applicable. | CAC contends its involvement was limited to collection, not the sale itself, thus outside MPA. | Yes, the conduct was in connection with the sale; MPA applicable. |
| Whether punitive damages were properly submitted and supported | Peel presented clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct warranting punitive damages. | CAC argues the conduct was not outrageous and argues procedural limits on damages. | Punitive damages properly submitted; not error in amount under due process standards. |
| Whether the trial court erred in not giving a mitigation of damages instruction | Peel did not have a viable declaratory judgment path, but mitigation was appropriate under MPA principles. | CAC argued Peel could mitigate by pursuing declaratory relief. | No reversible error; mitigation instruction not required or preserved for review. |
| Whether Instruction 6 properly stated the title-delivery requirement and related duties | Instruction accurately reflected that lack of title renders sale fraudulent and void, and buyer bears no obligation to pay. | CAC argued instruction omitted Peel’s duty to obtain title and added nonstatutory language. | Instruction 6 properly stated law; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbons v. J. Nuckolls, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. banc 2007) (broader reading of 'in connection with' in MPA)
- Schuchmann v. Air Services Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 228 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (MSA scope—prevalence of 'before, during or after' sales)
- Ports Petroleum Co. v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2001) (plain meaning broadness of MPA terms)
- State ex rel. Koster v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, 351 S.W.3d 661 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011) (limits of 'in connection with' in debt-collection context)
- Shivers v. Carr, 219 S.W.3d 301 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007) (sale/transfer legality and title transfer emphasis)
- Public Fin. Corp. of Kansas City, Mo. v. Shemwell, 345 S.W.2d 494 (Mo.App. W.D. 1961) (void sale consequences and unenforceable notes)
- Bailey v. Hawthorn Bank, 382 S.W.3d 84 (Mo.App. W.D. 2012) (submissibility standard for punitive damages)
- Overbey v. Chad Franklin National Auto Sales N., LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. banc 2012) (three-factor test for punitive damages and reprehensibility)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (guideposts for punitive damages and ratio considerations)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (multifactor approach to grossly excessive punitive awards)