United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 20)
CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is Defendants General RV Center, Inc., and U.S.
Bank's motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral
argument on June 4, 2019, and took the matter under
advisement. For the reasons explained below, Defendants'
motion is granted.
George and Odelia Dolores allege that Defendant General RV
Center, Inc., duped them into buying a defective recreational
vehicle. On April 3, 2018, Plaintiffs visited the General RV
Center in Orange Park, Florida. The complaint alleges that
they had no intention of purchasing an RV on that date. A
salesman, Kevin Mills, showed them a 2018 Crossfit RV, which
Plaintiffs contend was advertised for $87, 000. Mills told
Plaintiffs that the RV was marked down and could be purchased
for $78, 000. Plaintiffs test drove the RV; when they
returned, Mills stated that he had made a mistake on the
price and that it was $87, 000.
to the complaint, Mills pressured Plaintiffs into purchasing
the RV that very day and told them that they needed a $17,
000 down payment. Plaintiffs told Mills that they did not
have the funds for a down payment, but said that they had a
2007 Winnebago with an outstanding loan and a 2006 Honda
truck. Mills encouraged Plaintiffs to trade in both vehicles
(which were their only vehicles) toward the cost of the
Crossfit. Mills told Plaintiffs that General RV would give a
$55, 000 trade in credit if they agreed to purchase the
Crossfit for $87, 000 that day. Mills also told Plaintiffs
that the Crossfit would be ready to be picked up the next
signed a purchase agreement on April 3, 2018. See
Doc. 20-1, Ex. 2. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were
“under the impression” that they were purchasing
a brand new “defect free” Crossfit for $87, 000
with a $55, 000 credit. Doc. 1 at ¶ 28. The purchase
agreement reflected, however, a purchase price of $100, 247.
Doc. 20-1, Ex. 2.
Plaintiffs signed the agreement, Mills informed them that
they could not pick up the Crossfit on the next day because
it had been recalled and General RV needed to make repairs.
General RV contends that all factory recall repairs were
subsequently performed. According to the complaint,
Plaintiffs read the purchase agreement on April 5, 2018, and
realized that General RV had “unknowingly changed and
marked up the price of the Crossfit to $100, 247.” Doc.
1 at ¶¶ 40-41.
April 17, 2018, Mills called and told Plaintiffs they could
pick up the Crossfit. When Plaintiffs arrived at the
dealership, they were advised that the Crossfit was not
ready. Plaintiffs waited approximately eight hours at the
dealership. Plaintiffs relinquished their trade-in vehicles
and executed a new purchase agreement. Doc. 20-1, Ex. 4.
Plaintiffs allege that before they signed the new purchase
agreement, General RV represented that the purchase price was
$87, 000, they would receive a $55, 000 credit for their
trade-in vehicles, the Crossfit was safe, and the vehicle was
fit for its intended purpose. Again, the new purchase
agreement reflected a list price of $100, 247. Id.
Plaintiffs contend that they were rushed through the signing
of the documents and did not have the opportunity to read
them. Doc. 26-2 at ¶¶ 20-21.
also signed a retail installment contract for the financing
of the Crossfit, which was provided by Defendant U.S. Bank.
Doc. 20-1, Ex. 10. Plaintiffs allege that the material terms
of the installment contract were “covered” when
they signed it. Doc. 1 at ¶ 50. Plaintiffs further
allege that the installment contract does not disclose the
existence of the trade-in vehicles, any net trade-in
allowance, or down payment amount, and that it contains
“charges for soft add-ons which were not disclosed to
Plaintiffs prior to consummation.” Id. at
state that they initially declined an extended service
contract but the business manager falsely stated that they
would need one to protect against the theft of the vehicle.
Plaintiffs contend that they were fraudulently induced into
purchasing the service contract from Defendant Cornerstone.
taking possession of the Crossfit, Plaintiffs took a road
trip. On May 5, 2018, the Crossfit began shaking when driven
on the highway, due to tire defects. General RV refused to
replace the tires. On June 5, 2018, the Crossfit's back
window popped out and shattered while Plaintiffs were
driving. Plaintiffs allege that the awning motor was
inoperable, the refrigerator and freezer malfunctioned, the
microwave oven overheated, and the kitchen countertop was
defective. Plaintiffs also allege that holes in the ceiling
were covered up with scotch tape. On July 18, 2018, Mrs.
Dolores's neck was injured after she was jerked and
swiveled around in the Crossfit's unsecured passenger
seat. Plaintiffs contend that the Crossfit is mechanically
unsound and unsafe to drive.
state that they called the corporate office of the
manufacturer, Forest River, Inc., on May 11, 2018, and spoke
to the service warranty manager, Gregory Legatt. Legatt
informed Plaintiffs that the Crossfit had sat idle on the
dealership lot for one year because of its recall status and
mechanical problems. Legatt told Plaintiffs that the dealer
should not have sold the Crossfit because of the outstanding
filed their complaint on February 11, 2019, alleging the
following causes of action: Count I, Motor Vehicle Sales
Finance Act (against General RV and U.S. Bank); Count II,
Motor Vehicle Installment Sales Contract Act (General RV and
U.S. Bank); Count III, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (General RV
and U.S. Bank); Count IV, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Forest
River); Count V, Michigan Consumer Protection Act (General RV
and U.S. Bank); Count VI, Michigan Consumer Protection Act
(Forest River); Count VII, misrepresentation (General RV and
U.S. Bank); Count VIII, misrepresentation (General RV and
Cornerstone); Count IX, statutory conversion (General RV and
U.S. Bank); and Count X, common law conversion (General RV
and U.S. Bank). Plaintiffs have stipulated to the dismissal
of Cornerstone and have agreed to withdraw Counts V (Michigan
Consumer Protection Act), IX (statutory conversion), and X
(common law conversion). General RV and U.S. Bank seek
summary judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining claims against