Brown v. Dick Smith Nissan, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-092-15, 8 pp.) (Donald Beatty, J.) (Costa Pleicones, Acting Chief Justice, concurring in the result only without separate opinion) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court (Alison Renee Lee, J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. S.C. S. Ct.
Holding: After several failed attempts to get financing for plaintiff to buy a Mazda 6, the defendant-dealership managed to get financing via an application that overstated plaintiff’s income and listed the collateral as a Nissan Altima. After accepting the lender’s payment for the Altima, the dealership refused plaintiff’s request to make the simple phone call it would have taken to correct the mistake as to collateral. The dealership acted in bad faith.
We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s purchase of the Mazda 6 was contingent on financing by a third-party source. After providing proof of insurance, plaintiff took possession of the Mazda 6.
Although the dealership notified plaintiff that Sovereign Bank had approved her financing, plaintiff received a denial letter from Sovereign. When plaintiff called Sovereign to verify the status of her financing request, a bank representative told her that financing was approved for a Nissan Altima. Plaintiff explained that she was buying a Mazda 6, but the bank refused to change the paperwork and told her to contact the dealership. Plaintiff did so, but the dealership refused to take any corrective action. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the dealership had already accepted payment for the Altima.
The day after receiving the denial letter from Sovereign, plaintiff returned the Mazda 6 to the dealership because she did not believe it was financed. Shortly thereafter, Sovereign sent plaintiff a letter saying it had repossessed the Mazda 6 and sold it, resulting in a deficiency of $3,843, for which plaintiff was responsible.
The dealership made false statements to Sovereign and plaintiff regarding financing for the Mazda 6. Even after being advised of the mistake as to collateral, the dealership took no corrective action. As a result, plaintiff was required to pay Sovereign for a car that she did not agree to buy and did not possess.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals that the inaccuracies in the information provided to Sovereign were merely “puffing.” Financing a car that plaintiff did not purchase was neither “puffing” nor helpful to plaintiff.
The dealership acted in bad faith when it made no effort to assist plaintiff in correcting the financing paperwork or transferring collateral on the loan.
When the Court of Appeals ignored the trial court’s findings – which were supported by evidence in the record – and substituted its own, the Court of Appeals exceeded its standard of review.
Reversed.
