Print
Respond to Editor
ReprintsHyundai customer's lawsuit too late, court says
A customer's claims that a North Carolina Hyundai dealership committed lending violations and fraud are barred because he waited too long to file his lawsuit, a state appeals panel has ruled.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate a lawsuit by Dale Stunzi accusing Medlin Motors Inc. in Rocky Mount of improperly increasing the purchase price on his 2003 Tiburon to hide the negative-equity payoff amount on his trade-in so he could qualify for financing.
Stunzi's suit also accused the dealership of failing to tell him the Tiburon had been branded as a lemon.
The three-judge panel unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that the statutes of limitations on all Stunzi's claims ran out before he filed the case.
According to the decision and briefs, in August 2004 Stunzi agreed to buy the Tiburon for $15,400 and was to receive $4,910 for his 1988 Saturn trade-in. The retail installment sales agreement listed $15,400 as the cash price.
About a week after the transaction, the dealership asked Stunzi to sign a lemon disclosure form stating that Hyundai had repurchased the car because it did not conform to its express warranty and had not been repaired within a reasonable time. The form disclosed that multiple fuel-related repairs had been made.
Stunzi made his last loan payment in 2009 and received the title, which branded the car as a lemon. Soon afterwards, he sued.
The dealership asked for dismissal of the case on the basis of the statutes of limitations, although it "absolutely" disputes any wrongdoing, said its attorney, Christopher Derrenbacher of Raleigh.
Using the transaction and lemon disclosure form in August 2004 as a starting point, the appellate court ruled that all Stunzi's claims were barred by limitations periods ranging from one year for the Truth in Lending Act claim the dealership hid the negative-equity payoff amount to four years for fraud.
The appeals court rejected Stunzi's position that he couldn't have reasonably discovered the hidden negative equity until 2009.
It also rebuffed the argument that the clock didn't begin to run on the fraud-related allegations until Stunzi received the branded title.
Noted the court: "The one-page disclosure form itself reveals the information which the plaintiff claims was fraudulently withheld from him in bold, capitalized type at the very top of the form, so he cannot even claim that the relevant information was obscured in small type or hidden within a long document."
The plaintiff's lawyer did not return calls for comment.
You can reach Eric Freedman at freedma5@msu.edu.
