Wayne Rowe, Jr. v. Stephan Condodemetraky & a.
2016-0292
N.H.Feb 15, 2017Background
- Rowe bought a used car from Aftokinito Rally, Inc. (ARI) on Oct 14, 2014; paid $2,000 cash and financed a $4,599 balance with ARI.
- Sales contract set first payment due November 2014; Condodemetraky (ARI’s officer) demanded payment Oct 31 and threatened to “hold the car” and to report it stolen if not returned to ARI’s facility.
- Rowe made November and December payments (Nov 13 and Dec 14); ARI imposed a late fee not in the contract.
- In January 2015 ARI obtained title in its name and told Rowe the car had been reported stolen; in March 2015 Condodemetraky contacted Rowe’s employer and repossessed the vehicle from the employer’s lot.
- Rowe sued under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (RSA ch. 358-A); the superior court granted summary judgment for Rowe on CP A grounds, and the defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct fell within "trade or commerce" under the Consumer Protection Act | Rowe argued the sale/financing was part of ARI’s business and thus within trade or commerce | Defendants said financing here was a one-off, personal courtesy to a former employee, not business activity | Court found no genuine issue: transaction involved ARI’s sale of used vehicles and thus was trade or commerce |
| Whether summary judgment was improper due to disputed material facts | Rowe maintained facts show multiple deceptive acts warranting summary judgment | Defendants claimed genuine factual disputes about their conduct and intent precluded summary judgment | Court affirmed summary judgment for Rowe — no genuine issue of material fact remained |
| Whether specific factual findings on "trade or commerce" were required | Rowe relied on record showing business context; trial court’s implicit findings suffice | Defendants argued trial court failed to expressly find conduct was trade or commerce | Court held explicit findings were not required and assumed necessary findings were made; record supports the implicit finding |
| Whether defendants engaged in unfair/deceptive acts under the CPA (e.g., demanding early payment, extra-contractual fees, false theft report, employer contact) | Rowe argued these actions violated the CPA and supported summary judgment | Defendants disputed characterization but did not raise legal bar to CPA coverage | Court agreed with trial court that defendants’ actions violated the CPA and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabinson v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 160 N.H. 452 (2010) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Ellis v. Candia Trailers & Snow Equip., 164 N.H. 457 (2012) (test for whether transaction is within "trade or commerce")
- In re Jonathan T., 148 N.H. 296 (2002) (court may be presumed to have considered necessary issues absent explicit statement)
- Caouette v. Town of New Ipswich, 125 N.H. 547 (1984) (trial court not required to make specific factual findings absent request)
- Nordic Inn Condo. Owners’ Assoc. v. Ventullo, 151 N.H. 571 (2004) (appellate assumption that trial court made necessary findings to support decision)