Doppes

Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.

Bad Law
174 Cal. App. 4th 1004·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 903·94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 8, 2009No. G039922California2,007 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

August B. Doppes purchased a Bentley automobile that produced an obnoxious odor in its interior. He prevailed at trial against Bentley Motors, Inc. (Bentley), on claims for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The judgment awarded Doppes reimbursement concurrent with his return of the car to Bentley and prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 7 percent.

Bentley did not appeal from the judgment. Instead, eight months after its entry, Bentley filed a motion to set aside the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) on the ground it was void. Bentley argued the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding prejudgment interest because the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not permit its recovery. The trial court denied the motion, and Bentley appealed.

We hold the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act permits recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287. The trial court, therefore, did not exceed its jurisdiction by awarding prejudgment interest and did not err by denying Bentley’s motion to set aside the…

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.