2023 Ohio 2066
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In June 2020 Richard (pro se) bought a used 2012 Mazda CX-9 from CarMax; odometer ~74,688 miles and the sale included CarMax’s 90‑day/4,000‑mile limited warranty and a separate MaxCare service contract option.
- Immediately after purchase she heard a front squealing; she took the vehicle to multiple shops (Christian Brothers, Mazda of Kent, Classic Westside Mazda, Midas, Gary’s Auto) with persistent noise issues.
- In February 2022 the power transfer unit (PTU) failed; Richard paid for repairs and later learned of Mazda service bulletin/extension SSP92 addressing PTU failures.
- Richard sued CarMax in Bedford Municipal Court alleging violations of the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act, Ohio Lemon Law, and consumer‑protection rules, seeking refund/repairs/damages.
- At bench trial Richard did not produce a trial transcript on appeal; trial exhibits showed CarMax’s limited warranty had expired and that SSP92 was a warranty extension (not a safety recall) and, per records in the record, had expired before Richard’s purchase.
- The appellate court affirmed: Richard failed to show Lemon Law coverage, failed to prove a breach of an enforceable warranty during its coverage period or that she afforded CarMax reasonable repair opportunities, and failed to comply with appellate rules (no transcript, nonconforming brief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Ohio Lemon Law | Richard: vehicle was chronically defective and covered by Lemon Law | CarMax: vehicle was used (2012) and outside Lemon Law time/mileage limits | Lemon Law inapplicable—covers new vehicles during first year or 18,000 miles; 2012 vehicle purchased in 2020 falls outside coverage |
| Magnuson‑Moss / breach of warranty | Richard: CarMax breached warranty and failed to repair, entitling her to relief under Magnuson‑Moss | CarMax: only a 90‑day/4,000‑mile limited warranty applied and Richard did not present evidence she sought repairs from CarMax within that period | No Magnuson‑Moss recovery—plaintiff did not show an applicable warranty remedy or that she afforded CarMax reasonable repair attempts within warranty period |
| Existence/effect of SSP92 (recall vs. warranty extension) | Richard: PTU was subject to manufacturer recall/coverage and CarMax knew and should have repaired before sale | CarMax: SSP92 is a limited warranty extension (not a safety recall) and had expired before sale; records show no unrepaired safety recalls | SSP92 was a warranty extension, not a safety recall, and record evidence indicated any extension had expired before Richard’s purchase; claim based on SSP92 fails |
| Appellate procedure/noncompliant brief | Richard: (pro se) presented issues/questions but did not follow App.R.; argues facts and testimony support claims | CarMax: argues appellant failed to provide the trial transcript and nonconforming brief, undermining review | Court: affirmed that failure to file necessary transcript and to comply with App.R. 16 and 9(B) permits affirmance; review on existing record also shows no merit to claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 750 N.E.2d 531 (2001) (describing Ohio Lemon Law’s purpose to protect consumers from chronically defective new automobiles)
- Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1141 (2007) (Lemon Law coverage limited to first year or first 18,000 miles)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (standard for manifest‑weight review in bench trials)
- Tsirikos‑Karapanos v. Ford Motor Co., 99 N.E.3d 1203 (2017) (Magnuson‑Moss claim requires establishing breach of express or implied warranty and reasonable repair opportunities)
- State v. Martin, 485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (describing manifest‑weight standard for evaluating conflicts in evidence)