Opinion ID: 889184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lemon Law Claims

Text: ¶ 23 In its post-trial motion, Fleetwood argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Lemon Law claim because the Vaders failed to meet certain threshold requirements for presenting such a claim. The first alleged threshold was a notice requirement pursuant to § 61-4-502, MCA. This statute reads in pertinent part as follows: Notice  warranty enforceable after warranty period  when. (1) If a consumer notifies in writing the manufacturer or its agent during the warranty period that a new motor vehicle does not conform to all applicable express warranties, the repairs necessary to conform the new motor vehicle to the express warranties shall be made by or at the expense of the warrantor, regardless of the expiration of the warranty period after notification of nonconformity is given by the consumer. Section 61-4-502(1), MCA. ¶ 24 Fleetwood asserted that this statute requires a consumer to notify the manufacturer in writing during the warranty period that a motor vehicle is nonconforming as a prerequisite to invoking the remedies of the Lemon Law. Fleetwood asserted that the warranty period referred to in this statute is found at § 61-4-501(7), MCA, which expressly defines a warranty period as the period ending 2 years after the date of the original delivery to the consumer of a new motor vehicle or during the first 18,000 miles of operation, whichever is earlier. According to Fleetwood, failure to comply with this notice requirement within the statutorily-defined warranty period bars a consumer from later availing herself of a remedy under the Lemon Law. ¶ 25 In addition, Fleetwood argued that consumers were required to take certain actions within the warranty period prior to bringing a Lemon Law claim pursuant to § 61-4-503, MCA. This statute reads as follows: (1) If after a reasonable number of attempts the manufacturer or its agent or authorized dealer is unable, during the warranty period, to conform the new motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use and market value or safety of the motor vehicle to the consumer, the manufacturer shall replace it with a new motor vehicle of the same model and style and of equal value, unless for reasons of lack of availability replacement is impossible, in which case the manufacturer shall replace it with a motor vehicle of comparable market value. (2) As an alternative to replacement, the manufacturer may accept return of the new motor vehicle from the consumer upon refund to the consumer of the full purchase price, plus reasonable collateral charges and incidental damages, less a reasonable allowance for the consumer's use of the motor vehicle. The refund must be paid to the consumer and to a lienholder, if any, in proportion to their interests. Section 61-4-503, MCA. ¶ 26 Fleetwood claimed that the Vaders failed to meet these threshold requirements because they did not present evidence that they gave Fleetwood written notice of the swaying/handling problem by the end of calendar year 2002, which it argued was the end of the warranty period. Additionally, Fleetwood claimed that the Vaders failed to make a reasonable number of attempts to have the swaying/handling problem fixed prior to the expiration of the warranty period. Fleetwood argued that the first attempt to have the swaying problem addressed occurred in July 2003 when the Vaders took the motor home to J & D Repair in Helenamore than six months past the last date for obtaining relief as contemplated by § 61-4-503, MCA. ¶ 27 The District Court rejected the argument that § 61-4-502, MCA, imposes a notice requirement on Lemon Law claims. The District Court concluded that the statute related to those situations where a written notice is given prior to the expiration of the warranty and the warranty is not fulfilled during the warranty period. This is not the issue in this case, and there is no specific requirement of any particular type of notice. With regard to the second statutory requirement, the District Court found that the Vaders presented evidence at trial to the effect that they took the motor home to multiple dealers a total of approximately eight times in an attempt to have the problems resolved within the first two years of the warranty period. The District Court noted that an exhibit placed into evidence by the Vaders showed that they made a complaint about the motor home's suspension on January 7, 2002, which was within the warranty period. Thus, the District Court concluded the Vaders had satisfied the statutory and evidentiary requirements for submitting the Lemon Law claim to the jury. ¶ 28 Fleetwood argues that the uncontroverted evidence establishes that the warranty period expired by November 2002 and that the Vaders failed to take the steps required under the Lemon Law in order to avail themselves of its remedial purposes. It asserts that the Vaders failed to provide written notice of the swaying problem and failed to make a reasonable number of attempts to have the swaying problem fixed prior to November 2002. Fleetwood concedes that the Vaders did complain in writing about problems with some of the internal components of the motor home (i.e., fixtures, appliances, furnishings and other accessories), but failed to do the same with respect to the non-residential components (i.e., the swaying problem). Fleetwood notes that residential components are not covered by the Lemon Law. See § 61-4-501(5)(b)(ii), MCA. Thus, any complaints about these residential components do not satisfy the notice requirement under the Lemon Law, because only written notice of an issue with a nonresidential component (in this case, the swaying/handling problem) would be sufficient. Additionally, Fleetwood reiterates the view taken in its post-trial motion that a minimum number of reasonable attempts to have the swaying/handling problem addressed simply did not occur until after the warranty period expired, and that the earliest attempt to address this problem did not actually occur until July 2003six months after the warranty period ended. ¶ 29 The Vaders urge us to affirm. They maintain that the District Court correctly concluded that § 61-4-502, MCA, does not impose a notice requirement. However, even if written notice is required, they argue that evidence in the record shows it was satisfied. Furthermore, they argue that they did present evidence showing a reasonable number of attempts to have the motor home repaired within the warranty period. In general, they argue that the reasonableness of such attempts is a question of fact for the jury, and that the jury resolved this question in their favor. More specifically, they point to testimony from David Vader that he repeatedly delivered his motor home to dealerships for repair and complained of the swaying problem, but that the dealers would refuse to attempt to repair or even document the problem in a work order because they viewed it as a chassis problem for which the Ford Motor Company, not Fleetwood, was responsible. ¶ 30 Based on the plain language of § 61-4-502, MCA, we agree with the District Court's ruling with regard to the notice requirement under the Lemon Law. We interpret a statute by looking first to the statute's plain language, and if the language is clear and unambiguous no further interpretation is required. State v. Johnston, 2008 MT 318, ¶ 26, 346 Mont. 93, ¶ 26, 193 P.3d 925, ¶ 26. Moreover, when interpreting statutes we view them as part of a whole statutory scheme, and construe them so as to forward the purpose of that scheme. State v. Burch, 2008 MT 118, ¶ 27, 342 Mont. 499, ¶ 27, 182 P.3d 66, ¶ 27. The plain language of § 61-4-502, MCA, demonstrates clearly that it was not designed to impose a notice requirement on Lemon Law claims. The statute is entitled Notice  warranty enforceable after warranty period  when. The intent of this statute is to extend the enforceability of a warranty period in those situations where a consumer provides written notice of a non-conformity to a manufacturer or its agent prior to the expiration of the warranty period in order to ensure that the necessary repairs are completed under the terms of the warranty. We agree with the District Court that this statute is simply inapplicable to the case at bar. ¶ 31 By contrast, § 61-4-503, MCA, does require a consumer to make a reasonable number of attempts to have a motor vehicle conform to any express warranties within the warranty period. At trial, David Vader testified that he made such attempts within the warranty period, but did not have documentation of these attempts because when he tried to have the swaying problem addressed, the Fleetwood dealerships would tell him to contact Ford Motor Company about the problem and would refuse to write up a work order. The jury clearly found this testimony credible. We conclude there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the Vaders had made a reasonable number of attempts to have the swaying/handling problem remedied. ¶ 32 A motion for judgment as a matter of law is not a device by which parties can invoke a reviewing court's power to reexamine and reweigh the evidence before the jury. The party making this motion must demonstrate a complete absence of any evidence which would justify submitting an issue to a jury. West, ¶ 45. Fleetwood has failed to meet this burden. While the jury was certainly not required to believe David Vader's testimony, they apparently did. Thus, the District Court did not err in denying Fleetwood's motion regarding this claim.