Muskegon Circuit Court LC No. 16-003986-NI
Before: Markey, P.J., and Borrello and Boonstra, JJ.
BOONSTRA, J.
Defendants
Betten Chevrolet, Inc. (Betten), and Matt Root (Root) appeal
by right the trial court's final judgment entered after a
jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendants challenge the
trial court's directed verdict in favor of plaintiff
regarding whether defendants violated the Motor Vehicle
Service and Repair Act (MVSRA), MCL 257.1301 et seq,
and its subsequent post-verdict award of attorney fees and
costs based on that violation. We reverse the trial
court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of
plaintiff, remand for entry of an amended judgment in favor
of defendants on plaintiff's claim for violation of
MVSRA, and vacate the related award of attorney fees and
costs.
I.
PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In
October 2013, plaintiff and Doris Myricks (Myricks) took
Myricks's automobile to Betten for service and
maintenance. Service technician Root performed a tire
rotation but did not properly tighten the lug nuts on the
left front wheel of the vehicle. Myricks drove away from
Betten with plaintiff as her passenger. Approximately two
blocks from the dealership, the left front wheel came off the
vehicle, which caused it to skid and hit a curb. Plaintiff
complained of severe low back and leg pain following the
single-vehicle accident.
Plaintiff
filed a negligence action against defendants in 2017,
alleging that they had breached their duties to properly
perform vehicle maintenance, rotate the tires, and secure the
tires to the vehicle, causing him various injuries and
damages. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to
additionally allege that defendants had violated MVSRA. The
amended complaint did not identify a specific section of
MVSRA that defendants allegedly had violated; however,
plaintiff later filed a trial brief arguing that defendants
had violated MCL 257.1307a by charging for a repair that was
not performed and by failing to perform a promised repair
within the period of time agreed or a reasonable time. See
MCL 25.1307a(a), (e). Defendants denied plaintiff's
negligence and MVSRA allegations and asserted various
affirmative defenses.
Before
trial, defendants admitted that Root had rotated the tires on
Myricks's vehicle and had failed to properly tighten the
lug nuts on its left front wheel, and that defendants had
breached their duty not to perform the tire rotation
negligently. But defendants contested the elements of
causation and damages, and a jury trial was held on those
issues relating to plaintiff's negligence claim. At the
close of plaintiff's proofs, defendants moved for a
directed verdict. They argued in part that plaintiff had
failed to present testimony or evidence to support his MVSRA
claim. Plaintiff argued that the evidence presented at the
trial demonstrated that defendants had misrepresented that
the tire rotation had been completed despite defendants'
failure to tighten the lug nuts on the wheel.
The
trial court denied defendant's motion, concluding that
plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that defendants
had violated MVSRA by charging for a repair that was not
performed. Plaintiff then moved for a directed verdict on
that issue under MCL 257.1307a(a). Defendants responded that
they had completed the repair, albeit incorrectly, and
further that plaintiff was not able to bring a MVSRA claim
because he was not defendants' customer. Defendants again
argued that they were entitled to a directed verdict
that they did not violate MVSRA by failing to
perform a tire rotation. The trial court granted
plaintiff's motion, holding that MCL 257.1307 did not
limit a facility's liability only to customers, and that
defendants had failed to perform the tire rotation because
rotating tires involved the removal and replacement of the
lug nuts, and defendants had failed to properly replace all
the lug nuts. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of
plaintiff regarding whether defendants had violated
MVSRA.[1]
The
jury was instructed that defendants had violated MVSRA and
had admitted to negligence. It returned a verdict in favor of
plaintiff in the amount of $40, 000. The jury's verdict
form reflected its conclusion that defendants' negligence
and violation of MVSRA were proximate causes of
plaintiff's injury. After the verdict, plaintiff moved
for the entry of a judgment in his favor in the amount of the
jury award plus penalty damages, reasonable attorney fees,
and costs under MCL 257.1336. The trial court again held that
plaintiff was not entitled to penalty damages because
defendants did not willfully violate MVSRA, but awarded
attorney fees and costs in excess of $70, 000 based on
defendants' violation of MVSRA.
This
appeal followed. On appeal, defendants do not challenge the
jury verdict or the amount awarded as actual damages, but
challenge the trial court's directed verdict regarding
whether they violated MVSRA and the related post-judgment
award of attorney fees and costs.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This
Court reviews de novo issues of statutory interpretation.
Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich. 156');">484 Mich. 156, 164; 772 N.W.2d 272
(2009). Additionally, we review de novo a trial court's
decision on a motion for directed verdict. Krohn v
Home-Owners Ins Co, 490 Mich. 145, 155; 802 N.W.2d 281
(2011). A directed verdict is appropriate only when no
factual question exists upon which reasonable minds could
differ. Aroma Wines & Equip, Inc v Columbia Distrib
Servs, Inc, 303 Mich.App. 441, 446; 844 N.W.2d 727
(2013); Heaton v Benton Ins Co, 286 Mich.App. 528,
532; 780 N.W.2d 618 (2009). In reviewing a directed verdict,
we review all the evidence presented up to the time of the
motion to determine whether a question of fact existed.
Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278
Mich.App. 446, 455; 750 N.W.2d 615 (2008). In deciding
whether to direct a verdict, the trial court must view the
testimony and all legitimate inferences from the testimony in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine
whether a directed verdict is appropriate; we review the
evidence in the same manner. Chouman v Home-Owners Ins
Co, 293 Mich.App. 434, 441; 810 N.W.2d 88 (2011);
Krohn, 490 Mich. at 155; Aroma Wines, 303
...