1

The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 98-4051

________________

Ernest P. Sharlow; 

Jodi M. Sharlow,

Appellants,

v.

Wally McCarthy Pontiac-GMC

Trucks-Hyundai, Inc., a Minnesota

corporation,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 14, 1999

 Filed: July 6, 2000

________________

Before HANSEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and JONES,1

 District Judge. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
2The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

2

Ernest P. Sharlow and Jodi M. Sharlow (the Sharlows) appeal the district court's2

grant of summary judgment in favor of Wally McCarthy's Pontiac-GMC TrucksHyundai, Inc. (McCarthy) in this suit involving an alleged violation of the Minnesota

Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, Minn. Stat. § 168.66-77. We affirm. 

I.

The Sharlows, citizens of Wisconsin, visited McCarthy in White Bear Lake,

Minnesota, on or about January 3, 1995, and expressed an interest in trading in their

current vehicle and purchasing a used GMC Sierra Truck. On January 7, 1995, the

Sharlows and McCarthy executed a purchase agreement, a motor vehicle retail

installment contract, and a financing addendum to both the purchase agreement and the

retail installment contract. The financing addendum stated that it was "incorporated by

reference to the vehicle purchase contract and the motor vehicle retail installment

contract . . . In the event that the seller/dealer fails to arrange the subject financing and

assign all of its interest . . . to a lending institution . . . the vehicle purchase contract and

retail installment contract shall become null and void." (Appellants' App. at 100).

Thereafter, McCarthy informed the Sharlows that it was unable to arrange financing

with Firstar Bank according to the terms set out in the retail installment contract, in part

due to the fact that Mr. Sharlow did not work at the place of employment identified in

his credit application. McCarthy, however, was able to arrange financing through

Metropolitan Federal. On January 17, 1995, the Sharlows and McCarthy executed a

second purchase agreement and a second retail installment contract, which identified

Metropolitan Federal as the assignee and contained less favorable terms for the

Sharlows. 
2The Sharlows settled with Firstar Bank, and their claims against Firstar Bank

were dismissed with prejudice.

3

After making several payments, the Sharlows defaulted, and McCarthy

repossessed the truck on November 13, 1995. The Sharlows filed for bankruptcy in

July 1996, in the Western District of Wisconsin, and their outstanding installment debt

on the truck was discharged. On January 6, 1997, the Sharlows brought suit against

McCarthy and Firstar Bank of Minnesota.3 The Sharlows alleged a breach of contract

claim as well as violations of various provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,

15 U.S.C § 1691, the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, Minn. Stat. §

168.66-77, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.43-48, and

the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.68-70. The district court

adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted McCarthy's motion

for partial summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the federal claim based on

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The court retained jurisdiction over the remaining

state law claims on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction authorized by 28 U.S.C. §

1367. On the four Minnesota state law claims, the district court later adopted the

magistrate judge's subsequent report and recommendation and granted summary

judgment to McCarthy on all four Minnesota state law claims. The Sharlows appeal

the grant of summary judgment only on the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment

Sales Act claim. 

II.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Coplin v. Fairfield Pub.

Access Television Comm., 111 F.3d 1395, 1401 (8th Cir. 1997). In conducting our

review, we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is "no genuine issue as to any

material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). 
4

On appeal, the Sharlows assert that the financing addendum violated the

Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MMVRISA) because the

MMVRISA requires that "[e]very retail installment contract . . . shall contain all the

agreements of the parties," Minn. Stat. Ann. § 168.71(a)(1), and the financing

addendum was not a part of the retail installment contract. Additionally, the Sharlows

contend that the transaction was completed at the time that the first retail installment

contract was signed, and therefore, McCarthy should be bound to its terms. 

In a case with virtually identical facts, the Minnesota Supreme Court, sitting en

banc, held that the MMVRISA is not violated by a conditional delivery agreement that

is not included in the retail installment contract despite the language of the act. See

Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, No. C4-99-161, 2000 WL 768539, at

*4-5 (Minn. June 15, 2000). "The plain purpose of the MMVRISA is to require

disclosure to consumers of the cost of credit extended to them . . . The 'agreement of

the parties' clause serves to prohibit dealers from relying on separate agreements

containing additional or contradictory financing terms." Id. at *5 (quoting Sharlow v.

Wally McCarthy Pontiac-GMC Trucks-Hyundai, Inc., No. 97-20 (D.Minn. Sept. 28,

1998)). The MMVRISA does not require "every agreement to a condition precedent

to be contained in the" retail installment contract. Id. 

Like the Sharlows' financing addendum, the conditional delivery agreement

contained language that the retail installment contract would become null and void if

financing was not approved. Id. at *2. The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that

the failure to attain financing prevented the first retail installment contract from

becoming a contract and that it was not until financing was attained that Mr. Scott

entered into a contract with the dealership. Id. at *5. Because the second retail

installment contract fully disclosed the credit terms, it complied with the MMVRISA.

Id. In accordance with the Minnesota Supreme Court, we conclude that the Sharlows'

financing addendum did not violate the MMVRISA and that the second retail

installment contract complied with the terms of the statute.
5

III.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we deny all

pending motions as moot.

 A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT