KENAI CHRYSLER CENTER, INC. V. DENISON 167 P.3d 1240 (2007) CASE BRIEF

KENAI CHRYSLER CENTER, INC. V. DENISON

167 P.3d 1240 (2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Denison (P) got summary judgment voiding their ward's dealings with Kenai (D) and both parties cross appealed.

FACTS: Denison is developmentally disabled and has been under the legal guardianship of his parents since 1999, when he turned eighteen. P was living in his own apartment, but his parents strictly controlled his finances. They visited him at least once each week to make sure he had a clean and safe place to live and was budgeting his food money properly. They also visited him socially several times every week. They first learned that P wanted to buy a car when P called his father, from D and asked him to cosign for a used car; the father refused to cosign. P then tried to buy a new car, a Dodge Neon, and called his mother to ask for money for a down payment. She refused and told him not to buy a car. P used his debit card and bought the Neon. The total price came to $17,802. P only needed $500 in cash with his trade and factory rebate. D financed the remaining $12,851.77 at 11.99% APR for five years. P's mother came to D with P and informed the salesman who had sold the car and a Kenai Chrysler manager that P was under the legal guardianship of his parents and had no legal authority to enter into a contract to buy the Neon. She asked them to take back the car. The manager refused; she insisted that the contract was void, but the manager ignored her and handed the keys to P over her objection. P drove off in the new car. P damaged the Neon in a one-car accident. They returned the car back to D, but six days later, when P called to ask for his Pontiac back, someone at the dealership told him that he could not have it but could pick up his new car any time. P got a ride to D and picked up the Neon. The next day the parents were able to convince P to return the car to D yet again, and this time he left the car there. P's consulted the Alaska State Association for Guardianship and Advocacy and the Disability Law Center; they confirmed that the contract was void. The court-appointed investigator for P's guardianship case contacted D's general manager, Bannock, and advised Bannock that the guardianship did indeed make the contract legally void; Bannock refused to listen to the advice. An advocate from the Disability Law Center contacted Robert Favretto, the owner of and Favretto would not listen to the advocate's advice. D sought no legal advice concerning the validity of the sales contract until November 15, a full month after the sale. D assigned P's loan to the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) but never informed GMAC of P's incapacity. It also demanded storage fees from P for keeping the Neon on its lot. It sold P's Pontiac trade-in on the same day Ps brought the Neon back for the second time, even though Ps were still contesting the sale. GMAC eventually repossessed the Neon and sold it, resulting in a deficiency on the loan. After the P's' attorney informed GMAC of the guardianship, GMAC agreed to treat the loan as uncollectible. D paid GMAC the deficiency without asking whether GMAC intended to collect the loan. P sued D. Eventually, the court granted the Ps' motion for summary judgment and declared the sales contract void as a matter of law. It also summarily granted judgment against D on its affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The jury returned a verdict in P's favor. The superior court later awarded P treble damages under the UTPA; the award totaled $30,450. P also got 80% of its $63,280 request for attorney fees. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner