Ward v. West County Motor Co.
2013 Mo. LEXIS 20
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs paid deposits to West County to secure vehicle purchases; all signed nonrefundable deposit terms; West County allegedly told refunds were possible if purchase not completed; plaintiffs decided not to buy, deposits not refunded; they sued for MMPA violations and conversion; trial court dismissed MMPA claims for failure to state a claim and plaintiffs dismissed conversion; appeal challenges the dismissal and seeks attorney’s fees on appeal.
- Plaintiffs allege West County violated the MMPA by not providing a rescission period under §365.070; they also allege conversion, lack of good faith, and an unlawful liquidated-damages clause.
- West County contends §365.070.4 applies only to retail installment contracts; plaintiffs did not enter a retail installment transaction; rescission rights do not attach to deposits under the statute.
- Court reviews de novo for dismissals; MMPA supplements fraud law and requires ascertainable loss from an unlawful act; the statute’s “unfair practice” standard is defined by 15 CSR §§ 60-8.020 and 60-8.040.
- Court holds §365.070.4 applies only to retail installment contracts; no rescission right for these transactions; however, conversion, lack of good faith, and unlawful liquidated-damages claims survive as argued, and the case is remanded for attorney’s fees assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rescission right under §365.070 applies? | Pltfs. argue ‘agreement’ triggers rescission. | West County: rescission only for retail installment contracts. | Rescission right does not apply; statute limited to retail installment contracts. |
| Do conversion, lack of good faith, and liquidated-damages claims state MMPA claims? | Claims based on conversion, bad faith, and unlawful liquidated damages. | These are outside or insufficient under MMPA. | Claims survive; court reverses dismissal on these grounds. |
| Attorney’s fees on appeal appropriate? | Plaintiffs seek appellate fees under MMPA. | Fees should be determined by trial court. | Remand to trial court to determine appellate attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Roster v. Professional Debt Management, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 668 (Mo.App.2011) (MMPA framework and unfair practices guidance)
- Hunt v. Estate of Hunt, 348 S.W.3d 103 (Mo.App.2011) (conversion and misappropriation definitions)
- Rosehill Gardens, Inc. v. Luttrell, 67 S.W.3d 641 (Mo.App.2002) (court delegations on attorney’s fees; appellate discretion)
- Berry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425 (Mo.banc 2013) (attorney’s fees and appellate considerations)
- Diffley v. Royal Papers, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 244 (Mo.App.1997) (validity of liquidated damages clauses)
- Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834 (Mo.banc 2008) (standard of review for dismissals)