Opinion ID: 1689582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Conspiracy Claim

Text: The plaintiffs claim that Primus conspired with Jack Ingram and Crow in order to defraud the plaintiffs. In order to succeed on a civil-conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must prove a concerted action by two or more people that achieved an unlawful purpose or a lawful end by unlawful means. McLemore v. Ford Motor Co., 628 So.2d 548 (Ala.1993); see also AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. Spigener, 505 So.2d 1030, 1040 (Ala.1986). In order to prove a conspiracy, a plaintiff may present circumstantial evidence. Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Ala.1988). The plaintiffs support their conspiracy claim by offering evidence of four things they say show a conspiracy between Primus and Jack Ingram: (1) that Primus provided Jack Ingram with a handbook, which the plaintiffs say instructed Jack Ingram how to hide the acquisition fee in the cap cost and not disclose it to the customer; (2) that Primus must have learned of the misrepresentation when it reviewed the forms, which were filled out by the plaintiffs and Crow, during the process by which it approved the assignment of the lease, and that it should be held to have thereby ratified Crow's actions; (3) that Primus received all of the proceeds of the acquisition fee; and (4) that the lease, on its face, misrepresents the fact that other fees can be rolled into the monthly lease payment when it states that there are no other charges payable monthly. The handbook issued by Primus to Jack Ingram offers no evidence whatever of a conspiracy. We have thoroughly reviewed the pages of the handbook cited by the plaintiffs in support of their proposition that the handbook includes instructions for Mazda dealers as to how to charge an acquisition fee to their lease customers, hide the acquisition fee in the cap cost and not disclose the acquisition fee to customers, as well as the remaining portions of the handbook, and we can find absolutely no evidence of any such instruction. Instead, the pages referred to by the plaintiffs instruct the dealer only on how to properly fill out the forms if the customer wishes to have the lease assigned to Primus. An example within the handbook does include a $450 acquisition fee that was applied to the total amount, which was then used to determine monthly payments, but the handbook in no way advises the dealer to hide this fee. The handbook, in its entirety, is designed to provide certain guidelines for dealers' participation in the Primus lease programs; it provides no evidence of a conspiracy. The second and fourth items mentioned by plaintiffs both deal with the face of the lease forms that were provided to Jack Ingram by Primus. The plaintiffs claim that these forms indicate the misrepresentation, and they claim that Primus had knowledge of the misrepresentation, based on its dealing with the forms when it agreed to accept an assignment of the lease. Nothing in the lease documents indicates a misrepresentation. The lease worksheet clearly points out that no acquisition fee was included in the INITIAL CHARGES section of the worksheet, but that it was included in the total cost of the transaction indicated by the NET AGREED VALUECAPITALIZED COST section. In other words, the worksheet indicates that while the plaintiffs would not have to pay an acquisition fee up-front, such a fee would be included in the total amount that was used to calculate the monthly lease payments. Furthermore, the lease itself makes no misrepresentation, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim. On the lease, the line labeled Other Charges Payable Monthly comes after the line that states the monthly payment, a payment that already included the acquisition fee. Therefore, the Other-Charges-Payable-Monthly line could refer only to payments that would be made monthly over the term of the lease other than the monthly payments, which had already been stated. Therefore, it is clear that the documents evidence no misrepresentation. The other item the plaintiffs offer as proof that Primus was involved in a conspiracy is the fact that Primus received all of the proceeds of the acquisition fee. Primus receives proceeds from leases because it purchases leases from the dealer. In other words, the leases are assigned to Primus, and therefore Primus is entitled to the proceeds, including the acquisition fee, which can be built into the monthly payments. If this made Primus a conspirator, then all other possible assignees used by Jack Ingram, such as finance companies, banks, and credit-card companies, could also be conspirators. We do not agree that this is evidence of a conspiracy. Therefore, we conclude, the plaintiffs failed to present substantial evidence indicating a conspiracy between Primus and Jack Ingram. The summary judgment was proper as to the conspiracy claim. The summary judgment for Primus is affirmed. AFFIRMED. MADDOX, SEE, BROWN, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.