Opinion ID: 2428959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Insufficient Evidence of Failure To Disclose Actual Mileage

Text: This argument deals with liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1988 which requires a transferor to disclose either the actual mileage on a vehicle's odometer or that the actual mileage is unknown. This argument also concerns 15 U.S.C. § 1989, which provides for recovery of damages from any person who violates the Act with an intent to defraud. WBF moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Smith had not proved WBF knowingly gave a false statement as to the odometer reading with the intent to defraud Smith. WBF contends that Smith is required to prove WBF had actual knowledge that the odometer had been altered. Actual knowledge is not a requirement under the Federal Odometer Fraud Act; constructive knowledge or reckless disregard is sufficient. Haynes v. Manning, 917 F.2d 450 (10th Cir.1990). That an odometer was tampered with or that a transferor knew or should have known the mileage was false can be inferred from the facts. Bryant v. Thomas, 461 F.Supp. 613 (D.Neb. 1978). Intent to defraud arises from proof of change in an odometer reading and the seller's failure to disclose such change, in absence of an explanation of the odometer change. Delay, 373 F.Supp. 791. Evidence was presented from which the jury could have concluded the odometer disclosure statement issued WBF was false and with an intent to defraud. A service company repaired the truck in November 1986 and noted the mileage at 84,274. In January 1987, Landis returned the truck to Ford Motor Credit, which then certified the mileage to WBF at 45,890. One week prior to that disclosure statement, WBF had possession of the truck and ordered repairs for it. WBF sold the truck to Smith in July 1987 and disclosed the mileage to be 45,974. The foregoing evidence is substantial evidence that the odometer was rolled back. In the absence of an explanation of how the alteration occurred, that is all that needs to be proved. Delay, 373 F.Supp. 791. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying WBF's motion for directed verdict.