Lopez v. Reynoso

118 P.3d 398 (2005)

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

P purchased an Explorer from D. According to P, the parties agreed to a sale price of $6,500 with $500 down and interest at three percent. She claims she gave Mr. Reynoso $500 down in cash but never received a receipt for the payment. D claims he agreed to lower the sale price to $8,000 if P agreed to pay $2,000 down. P's boyfriend, Fernando Ortega, gave him $1,800 on June 2, when the agreement was executed, and P brought in the additional $200 the next day. The receipt for the $1,800 payment is undated and numbered 3100; the receipt for the $200 payment is dated June 3, 2000, and numbered 3112. The terms of the contract, as drafted stated that the price of the vehicle is $6,500, the tax and license fee are over $500, and the down payment is $500, for a total price of $6,533. The accountant compiled an amortization schedule for $250 monthly payments and gave a copy to P. This schedule indicates that P's last payment was due in September 2002. D insists P did not want the sales contract to show that the couple had paid $2,000 down. D's daughter, a childhood friend of P, testified that she witnessed the execution of the contract and that P had the idea to write the contract with a price reduced by $2,000 because she did not want Ortega's name to be on the title to the car. P was often late with payments and did not make her December 2001 payment. When she appeared at his office in January 2002 with a $250 payment, he refused it, claiming she owed him for two months. P contends she asserted at that time that her $2,000 payment was made after the sale agreement and lowered her obligation by another $2,000, which would be paid in full by the December 2001 payment. P again offered to pay $250 in February 2002, and Mr. Reynoso again rejected the payment. He repossessed the Explorer in March 2002. P filed a complaint and eventually moved for an order in limine to exclude parol evidence and for judgment on the pleadings. The motions were denied, and the court entered judgment for D. P appealed.