Michigan Vehicle Code protection from odometer-related deception; MCL 257.233a; Auto mileage disclosures; “With intent to defraud”; Titan Ins Co v Hyten; Treble recovery; “Actual damages”; Return of the purchase price after rescission as restitution; Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Hague; Incidental expenses; Laubengayer v Rohde; Attorney fees; Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n

The court held that plaintiff was properly granted summary disposition on her claim that defendant-auto dealer violated MCL 257.233a(1) and (3). Further, “the trial court did not clearly err in finding that defendant acted with intent to defraud under MCL 257.233a(15).” The court also concluded that restitution of the $13,000 purchase price as part of rescission did not constitute “damages” subject to trebling under the statute, but incidental expenses incurred in connection with the transaction were. Finally, it found that the trial court did not “conduct a proper Pirgu analysis in awarding” plaintiff’s attorney fees. As a result, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling trebling “incidental damages and its refusal to treble the purchase price” but vacated the attorney fee portion of the judgment and remanded. Defendant argued on appeal that it complied with MCL 257.233a(1)’s disclosure requirements, and it denied “acting ‘with intent to defraud’ under MCL 257.233a(15).” As to the former, the court noted that under “MCL 257.233a(1) and (3), the required disclosures must be made in a written statement and presented to the transferee; oral disclosures are insufficient.” It further determined that even if a factual dispute existed over whether plaintiff’s father acted as her “agent, the written disclosures presented to him fall short of what MCL 257.233a requires. There is no evidence that he received a certificate of title disclosing the mileage discrepancy, and the other documents—the ‘Odometer Disclosure Statement’ and the ‘Application for Title and Registration Statement of Vehicle Sale’—likewise fail to satisfy the statute.” As to the intent issue, defendant offered “little to contest the trial court’s finding” and the court concluded the trial court did not clearly err. Both parties challenged the monetary award. The court found that “the $13,000 refund is not repayment for a loss but a form of restitution,” and because this “is not a form of damages, the trial court did not err in declining to treble that aspect of the recovery.” However, as to plaintiff’s additional expenses ($3,489.80), it held that “compensatory payments made alongside an order of restitution are ‘incidental damages’ and therefore subject to trebling under MCL 257.233a(15).” Finally, it found that the trial court reduced plaintiff’s “requested fees without adequate explanation[.]”