Court Opinion

ID: 9684087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:46:23.88061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:52.672755
License: Public Domain

*721SHORT, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part)
I concur the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the dealership’s favor on the consumer fraud claim. But I respectfully dissent because the trial court properly dismissed Scott’s “non-signature” and “agreement of the parties” claims under the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (MMVRISA), Minn. Stat. §§ 168.66-77 (1998).
First, the absence of a dealership’s signature on a carbon copy of an installment sales contract is insufficient to state a claim for statutory penalties under the MMVRISA. See Sharlow v. Wally McCarthy’s Pontiac-GMC Trucks-Hyundai, Inc., No. 97-20 (D. Minn., filed Aug. 13, 1998) (rejecting argument that seller violated MMVRISA simply by failing to sign agreement); Patterson v. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 3-96-633 (D. Minn., filed Oct. 31, 1997) (holding absence of dealership’s signature on customer’s copy of retail installment contract does not frustrate MMVRISA), aff'd, 162 F.3d 1164, 1998 WL 372553 (8th Cir.1998); Cullen v. Art Goebel, Inc., No. 4-96-160 (D. Minn., filed July 23, 1997) (recognizing legislature did not intend to authorize “non-signature” claims under Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1)). Cf. O’Brien v. Phillips Motors Excelsior, Inc., 288 Minn. 183, 186, 189-90, 179 N.W.2d 158, 160-62 (1970) (affirming trial court’s judgment in favor of buyer in “non-signature” claim because seller did not furnish customer with copy of installment sales contract). Scott admits that he received copies of both installment contracts, which contained credit disclosures, and that he suffered no damage as a result of the absence of the dealership’s signature on the carbon copies. Given these facts, Scott’s “non-signature” claim fails as a matter of law.
Second, MMVRISA does not require that every understanding reached between a retail seller and consumer be incorporated into an installment sales contract. Rather, the statute merely prohibits dealers from relying on separate agreements that contain contradictory financing terms. See Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1), (b)(l)-(7) (requiring installment contracts to contain all of parties’ agreements, but defining contents of installment contracts only as agreements involving costs and financing); O’Brien, 288 Minn. at 185, 179 N.W.2d at 159-60 (noting plain purpose of Minn.Stat. § 168.71(a)(1) is to inform buyer of cost of credit extended to him/her). Because the conditional delivery agreement did not alter the credit terms that were disclosed in the installment sales contracts, Scott’s “agreement of the parties” claim also fails as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly dismissed Scott’s claims under MMVRISA. I would affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.