Opinion ID: 2524431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Does Mrs. Beall's Conduct, if Proven, Constitute an Unfair Trade Practice?

Text: ¶ 33 The trial court determined Mr. Patterson failed to establish the first element of his private right of action under the OCPAan unlawful practice. The trial court concluded that Mrs. Beall's conduct, even if proven, did not violate the OCPA because the conduct did not constitute an unfair trade practice under the OCPA. We disagree. [12] ¶ 34 The OCPA defines an unfair trade practice as follows: (12) Unfair trade practice means any practice which offends established public policy or if the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers. 15 O.S. (1991), § 752 (12). While this statutory definition of unlawful trade practice is broad it is not unique. Many state consumer protection statutes do not specifically define what constitutes an unfair trade practice but instead provide broad protection and leave it to the courts to determine whether specific conduct qualifies. See generally, Donald M. Zupanec, Annotation, Practices Forbidden by State Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Acts, 89 A.L.R.3d 449 (1979 & Supp.2000). ¶ 35 Whether alleged conduct constitutes an unfair trade practice under the OCPA is a fact question that the trial court must determine on a case by case basis. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we have no difficulty concluding that if Mrs. Beall demanded payment from Mr. Patterson for a real estate appraisal that was neither requested nor performed, and filed or attempted to file a false lien against Mr. Patterson's property, her conduct constituted an unfair trade practice as that phrase is defined in the OCPA. ¶ 36 Accordingly, we vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reverse the trial court's summary judgment against Mr. Patterson on his OCPA claim, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [13]