Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison

167 P.3d 1240 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 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 anytime. 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.