Mitchell v. Blue Bird Body Co.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 311·2000 Daily Journal DAR 4259·80 Cal. App. 4th 32·95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3161
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 24, 2000G021708California2,548 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Plaintiffs Mark and Cynthia Mitchell appeal from a judgment for defendant Blue Bird Body Company in an action brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.; all further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted.) The question presented is whether persons who purchase a new motor vehicle on credit can recover from the manufacturer the finance charges paid by them when exercising the remedy of restitution authorized by section 1793.2, subdivision (d)(2) (hereafter section 1793.2(d)(2)). The answer is yes, and we reverse the judgment.

Facts

In 1991, plaintiffs purchased a new motor home built by defendant through one of its authorized dealers. The vehicle’s cash price was $364,232. Plaintiffs executed a motor vehicle sale contract whereby they agreed to make a $55,000 down payment and finance the balance of the purchase price. The dealer subsequently assigned the contract to a lender. Thereafter, plaintiffs paid $143,162 under the contract, which included $25,291 allocated to principal and $117,871.11 in interest charges.

Plaintiffs sued defendant, the dealer, the lender, and others in 1995. The complaint alleged…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.