The Consumer Protection advocates

Sample Cases

Non-disclosure of previous taxi, limo, and rental

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. West Coast Motors

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous rental

Total Amount of Recovery: $25,838.19
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Our client purchased a 2006 Dodge Charger from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been used as a rental vehicle and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s prior use as a rental.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having been used as a rental.

Actual Damages: $2,300.00-$3,500.00 (the value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle that had never previously been used as a rental).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of attorneys’ fees totaling $25,838.19. The case settled within one month of Client retaining Hovanes Margarian.

Conclusion: Client had attempted to reach an agreement with the dealership prior to retaining counsel, but was treated with disrespect and refused a remedy. Upon retaining Hovanes Margarian, Client not only received a full refund, but also the benefit of having use of the vehicle for a period of five (5) months at no cost.


SAMPLE CASE 2:

Client vs. Calstar Motors, Inc.

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous taxi

Total Amount of Recovery: $45,000.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Our Client purchased a 2007 Mercedes-Benz S550 from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle was previously used as a taxi and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s prior use as a taxi.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s previous use as a taxi.

Actual Damages: $7,500.00 (value difference at the time of purchase between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle not previously used as a taxi; estimated at 10%).

Recovery: Upon taking on representation of the client, we successfully obtained corroborating evidence that dealership’s personnel had documentation which evidenced that the vehicle had previously been used as a taxi. Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant’s top pre-trial offer consisting of a $45,000.00 cash offer inclusive of attorney’s fees.

Conclusion: Client recovered essentially the equivalent of all her payments plus the benefit of having driven the vehicle over a period of two (2) years at no cost.


 

Non-disclosure of frame damage

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Client’s Prior Attorney

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of frame damage and legal malpractice

Total Amount of Recovery: $75,000.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Our Client purchased a 2004 Mercedes SL 600 from a large franchise new car dealership. Subsequently, it was discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been involved in a major collision and had sustained frame damage. The repairs were conducted by the selling dealership. Client had retained an independent attorney (“client’s prior attorney”) to represent him in the dealer fraud matter against the dealership. Following nearly two (2) years of litigation, unbeknown to Client, his prior attorney filed a dismissal of the entire case and through doing so barred the Client from pursuing his claims in the future. In representing the Client, Hovanes Margarian established the legal and factual basis of the dealership’s fraudulent conduct, and thereafter established that but for the prior attorney’s errors, the client would have prevailed against the selling dealership. After nearly one year of intense litigation, the prior attorney was compelled to pay the client’s damages since the dealership could no longer be held responsible for its fraudulent conduct.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the frame damage on the vehicle at the time of purchase.

Defendants’ Contentions: The franchised new car dealership which had sold the vehicle contended that it had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s frame damage and prior accident. Once the case turned against the prior attorney for negligent handling of the matter he too began to contend that the client’s claims had no merits.

Actual Damages: $28,000.00 (value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle without frame damage; estimated at 30%).

Recovery: $75,000.00 inclusive of attorney’s fees.

Conclusion: Client recovered a significant sum of money and the benefit of having driven the vehicle for nearly 2.5 years. Note that the client was not in possession of the subject vehicle at the time of retaining the Hovanes Margarian, which made the case even more challenging.

Attorney Selection: As this case demonstrates, there may be other attorneys eager to represent you. However, selecting the right attorney will assure an appropriate recovery and minimize your time investment. This case lasted two extra years due to the prior attorney’s negligent conduct.


 

SAMPLE CASE 2:

Client vs. Online Motors

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of frame damage

Total Amount of Recovery: $23,850.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2004 BMW 530i from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had frame damage and as such, its value was significantly lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to him at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s frame damage.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s frame damage.

Actual Damages: $5,000.00 (value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle without frame damage).

Recovery: By the time the client retained Hovanes Margarian, the dealership had closed. As such, we pursued the claims against the dealership’s insurance company and negotiated a repurchase and payment of $23,850 inclusive of attorney’s fees. The vehicle was valued roughly half the amount of the settlement. The case settled within nine months of retaining the Law Offices of Hovanes Margarian.

Conclusion: Client recovered essentially the equivalent of all his payments plus the benefit of having driven the vehicle over a period of nine (9) months at no cost.


 

SAMPLE CASE 3:

Client vs. Auto Depot

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of frame damage

Total Amount of Recovery: $25,600.64
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2004 Infiniti G35 from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had frame damage and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of purchase. Defendants never disclosed this material information to him at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s frame damage.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s frame damage.

Actual Damages: $4,000.00 (the value difference between the subject vehicle with frame damage and an equivalent one without such damage).

Recovery: A full repurchase and payment of $25,600.64 inclusive of attorney’s fees, payments made to date, and the amount required to pay off the loan balance.


 

Non-disclosure of previous damage (accident, no frame damage)

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Honda of Escondido

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous accident

Total Amount of Recovery: Loan payoff plus $7,925.28
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2007 Honda Accord from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been involved in an accident and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of purchase. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose that the subject vehicle was previously involved in an accident.
Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the previous accident.

Actual Damages: $2,500.00 (estimated value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar one without history of being involved in an accident).

Recovery: Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant’s top pre-trial offer consisting of a full repurchase, the payoff of the loan balance and payment of $7,925.28 inclusive of attorney’s fees and.


 

SAMPLE CASE 2:

Client vs. Bellflower Auto Mart

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous accident

Total Amount of Recovery: Loan payoff plus $700.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2001 Volkswagen Passat from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been involved in an accident and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of purchase. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose that the subject vehicle was previously involved in an accident.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the previous accident.

Actual Damages: $700.00 (amount of all payments made to-date of settlement).

Recovery: Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant’s top pre-trial offer consisting of a full repurchase and payment of $700.00. The case settled within two months of Client retaining Hovanes Margarian. Due to the fact that it was extremely difficult to establish that the dealership had detected the prior accident (the vehicle’s history report did not show any evidence) it was prudent to settle for a mere cancelation of the purchase contract and refund of the down payment and monthly payments made. Even with such a small cash recovery the client’s actual recovery was in the range of several thousand dollars as the vehicle was valued much less than the contract price and the client was able to get out of the obligations under the contract.


 

Non-disclosure of salvage title

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Super Motors Auto Sales

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of salvage title

Total Amount of Recovery: Loan payoff plus $12,740.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2001 Chrysler Sebring LX from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle was previously branded with a salvage title and as such, its value was substantially lower than a similar vehicle without a salvage title. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s salvage title.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle being branded with a salvage title.

Actual Damages: $2,000.00 (value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle without a salvage title).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle, a refund of all payments made and payment of attorneys’ fees totaling $12,740.00.


Non-disclosure of accurate condition of vehicle (unsafe and/or material conditions)

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Van Pelts Auto Sales

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions of vehicle

Total Amount of Recovery: $11,390.23
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2001 Volkswagen Jetta from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was greatly lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s pre-existing conditions.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having the pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs.

Actual Damages: $3,500.00 (the estimated amount it would cost to repair the subject vehicle).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of attorneys’ fees totaling $11,390.23.


 

SAMPLE CASE 2:

Client vs. Ford Lincoln Mercury Dealership

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions of vehicle

Total Amount of Recovery: $80,750.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2008 Lincoln Town Car Executive L from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was substantially lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase. Subsequently Defendants contended that the conditions were due to a manufacturing defect or use my the Client.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s pre-existing conditions.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having the pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs.

Actual Damages: $23,072.55 (amount of all payments made to-date of settlement).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of $80,750.00 inclusive of attorney’s fees and amount required to pay off the outstanding balance of the loan. The case lasted eighteen months.


 

SAMPLE CASE 3:

Client vs. BMW Dealership

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions of vehicle

Total Amount of Recovery: Loan payoff plus $8,514.82
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2003 Mercedes-Benz E500 from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was greatly lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s pre-existing conditions.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having the pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs.

Actual Damages: $5,514.82 (amount of all payments made to-date of settlement).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of $8,514.82. The case settled within two months of Client retaining Hovanes Margarian.


 

SAMPLE CASE 4:

Client vs. Puente Hills Subaru

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions of vehicle

Total Amount of Recovery: $65,201.70
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2005 Hummer H2 from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions which rendered the vehicle unsafe for use. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s pre-existing conditions.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having the pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs.

Actual Damages: $6,000 the estimated amount of part and labor cost to retrofit the vehicle to make it safe.

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of $65,201.70 inclusive of attorney’s fees and payoff of the balance of the loan. The case was concluded within three months of Client retaining Hovanes Margarian.


Non-disclosure of a “lemon law” buy-back

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Clients vs. RV Dealership

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of prior problems with the vehicle

Total Amount of Recovery: $226,738.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Clients purchased a 2005 Alpine MH from the Defendant for $180,000. Shortly thereafter Clients experienced various problems with the RV. Subsequently, it was discovered that the previous owner had returned the vehicle to the Defendant because of similar non-conformities and that the RV should have been branded as a “lemon”. The Defendant failed to disclose the prior problems with the subject vehicle at the time of sale to the Client.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the prior problems with the subject vehicle at the time of purchase.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendant contended that the prior problems were irrelevant, not material and that there was no duty to disclose.

Actual Damages: $25,000.00 (estimated value difference between what the client was given and what he expected to received at the time of purchase)

Recovery: The case settled on the eve of trial for an amount of $226,738.00. Attorney Hovanes Margarian had substituted into this case three weeks prior to the trial date, no discovery had been complete by the prior attorney, the Defendant’s last settlement offer to the prior attorney was $0. Within three weeks that offer resulted in nearly a quarter million dollar settlement once Margarian took over the matter.


 

Mileage or Odometer Fraud

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. United Best Auto Sales, Inc.

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of odometer tampering

Total Amount of Recovery: repurchase plus $2,000.00
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 1995 Nissan Maxima from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the odometer of the subject vehicle had been tampered with. As such, since the actual mileage of the subject vehicle was significantly higher, the value was substantially lower than what he had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the tampering of the odometer.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s odometer being tampered with.

Actual Damages: $300.00 (the estimated value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar one with the lower miles on the odometer).

Recovery: Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant’s top pre-trial offer consisting of a full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of $2,000.00. The case settled within two months of Client retaining The Margarian Law Firm.

Conclusion: Upon retaining the Margarian Law Firm, Client not only received a full refund, but also the benefit of having use of the vehicle for a period of several months at no cost.


 

Warranty Fraud

SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Keyes Lexus

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of voided warranty

Total Amount of Recovery: $3,002.32
Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq.

Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2007 Volkswagen GTI from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that manufacturer’s warranty of the subject vehicle had been voided because of extensive after-market parts/accessories. As such, in the event of necessary repairs, the subject vehicle would not be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.

Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose that the manufacturer’s warranty was voided.

Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge that the subject vehicle’s warranty was voided.

Actual Damages: $2,002.32 (amount of all payments made to-date of settlement).

Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of $3,002.32.