Walker v. Hixson Autoplex of Monroe, L.L.C.
245 So. 3d 1088
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Dr. Calvin Walker sought to buy a 2014/2015 "Limited Edition" 50th‑anniversary Mustang (one of 1,964) but instead purchased a 2015 Anniversary Edition GT from Hixson Autoplex for $3,000 over MSRP.
- Walker had earlier contacted another dealer (Rountree Ford) and paid a $10,000 nonrefundable deposit to reserve a Limited Edition, expressing that he wanted the Limited Edition specifically.
- Hixson salesperson Onebene contacted Walker in October 2014 and told him he had "a GT with the 50th anniversary package;" Walker examined the car and Monroney sticker and completed the purchase; he later learned it was the less‑scarce Anniversary Edition.
- Walker sued under LUTPA seeking rescission/return of purchase price, mental anguish damages, and attorney fees, alleging deceptive/unfair trade practices; Hixson counterclaimed for attorneys’ fees for bad‑faith suit.
- At trial the court denied Walker’s LUTPA claim and denied Hixson’s reconventional demand for fees; Walker appealed and Hixson answered the appeal reasserting its fee claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Rountree deposition | Walker: trial court should have read and considered Downey's deposition (shows Walker wanted Limited Edition). | Hixson: deposition was irrelevant; trial court properly declined to rely on it. | Court: deposition was relevant, but a limited de novo review shows its exclusion did not change ultimate findings; no reversible error. |
| Meeting of the minds / unilateral error vitiating contract | Walker: no meeting of minds because he intended to buy the Limited Edition and was misled into buying an Anniversary Edition. | Hixson: Walker never told Hixson he wanted the Limited Edition; Walker inspected the car and the Monroney sticker and accepted it. | Court: unilateral error does not vitiate consent unless seller knew or should have known the buyer's motive; here evidence conflicted and trial court reasonably found Walker’s omission and negligence fatal to his claim. |
| LUTPA liability (whether conduct was unfair/deceptive) | Walker: Hixson’s conduct was deceptive and unconscionable, warranting LUTPA relief. | Hixson: conduct was not fraudulent or egregious; at most negligence — no LUTPA violation. | Court: LUTPA requires egregious, knowingly deceptive conduct; record supports trial court’s finding of no LUTPA violation. |
| Attorney fees for bad‑faith LUTPA suit | Hixson: Walker asserted false facts (e.g., claimed recordings) and brought suit in bad faith, so fees should be awarded under La. R.S. 51:1409. | Walker: he did not misrepresent to the trial court that tapes existed; fee request unwarranted. | Court: fee award is discretionary and penal; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cupp Drug Store, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of La., 161 So.3d 860 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (fact‑finder’s LUTPA determinations reviewed for manifest error)
- Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA interpreted case‑by‑case; prohibited practices are narrow)
- Gandhi v. Sonal Furniture and Custom Draperies, L.L.C., 192 So.3d 783 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (dealer’s bait‑and‑switch and fraudulent conduct supported LUTPA treble damages)
- McFadden v. Import One, Inc., 56 So.3d 1212 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (dealer’s coercive conduct — holding vehicle hostage and false theft report — warranted LUTPA relief)
- Jeter v. M & M Dodge, Inc., 634 So.2d 1383 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994) (dealership’s concealment of prior repairs supported LUTPA finding)
- Gour v. Daray Motor Co., Inc., 373 So.2d 571 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1979) (failure to effectively communicate material fact about vehicle supported LUTPA violation)
- Cole v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 825 So.2d 1134 (La. 2002) (appellate deference to credibility and factfinder’s reasonable evaluations)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (de novo review limited to consequential evidentiary errors)