Opinion
No. A-9100845.
Decided June 10, 1992.
Kimpel, Hyland, Weinkam Goodson, Gary L. Lewis and Donald T. Jones, for plaintiff.
Bloom Greene Co., L.P.A., Stephen K. Shaw and Michael E. Finucane, for defendant.
I
This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant, Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler"), for partial summary judgment. Chrysler has moved for summary judgment on plaintiff Timothy Johnson's first and third causes of action in his amended complaint. Johnson's first cause of action, for breach of express warranty, and third cause of action, for Lemon Law violations as to Chrysler, seek relief under Ohio's "Lemon Law," R.C. 1345.71 et seq.
II
On September 28, 1987, Johnson entered into a written lease agreement with Mike Albert Leasing, Inc. ("Mike Albert") of a 1987 Chrysler Conquest. The total dollar amount of payments under the lease was $23,605.20. In executing the lease, Mike Albert was acting as the agent of the Fifth Third Bank ("Fifth Third"). The lease specified that Fifth Third would remain the owner of the vehicle during the term of the lease. Johnson had no right to transfer, sublease, rent or otherwise affect Fifth Third's ownership of the vehicle. On June 7, 1988, Johnson notified defendant that he was revoking his acceptance of the vehicle and additionally that he was seeking a return of the full purchase price, collateral charges, and incidental damages pursuant to R.C. 1345.72(B).
III
Ohio's "Lemon Law" is set out in R.C. 1345.71 through 1345.77. Three sections of this statute are of particular interest to the instant case:
R.C. 1345.71(A) and (F):
"(A) `Consumer' means the purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle, any person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of the express warranty that is applicable to the motor vehicle, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the warranty."
"(F) `Full purchase price' means the contract price for the motor vehicle, including charges for transportation, dealer-installed accessories, dealer services, dealer preparation and delivery and collateral charges; all finance, credit insurance, warranty and service contract charges incurred by the buyer; and all sales tax, license and registration fees, and other government charges."
R.C. 1345.72(B)(1) and (D)(1) and (2):
"(B) If the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer is unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, safety, or value of the motor vehicle to the consumer after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the manufacturer shall, at the consumer's option, and subject to division (D) of this section replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle acceptable to the consumer or accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund each of the following:
"(1) The full purchase price including, but not limited to, charges for undercoating, transportation, and installed options."
"(D) Sections 1345.71 to 1345.77 of the Revised Code do not affect the obligation of a consumer under a loan or retail installment sales contract or the interest of any secured party, except as follows:
"(1) If the consumer elects to take a refund, the manufacturer shall forward the total sum required under division (B) of this section by an instrument jointly payable to the consumer and any lienholder that appears on the face of the certificate of title. Prior to disbursing the funds to the consumer, the lienholder may deduct the balance owing to it, including any reasonable fees charged for canceling the loan and refunded pursuant to division (B) of this section, and shall immediately remit the balance if any, to the consumer and cancel the lien.
"(2) If the consumer elects to take a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall notify any lienholder noted on the certificate of title under section 4505.13 of the Revised Code. If both the lienholder and the consumer consent to finance the new motor vehicle obtained through the exchange in division (B) of this section, the lienholder shall release the lien of the nonconforming motor vehicle after it has obtained a lien on the new motor vehicle. If the existing lienholder does not finance the new motor vehicle, it has no obligation to discharge the note or cancel the lien on the nonconforming motor vehicle until the original indebtedness is satisfied."
"(A) Any purchaser of a new motor vehicle who suffers any loss due to nonconformity of the motor vehicle as a result of failure by the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer to comply with section 1345.72 of the Revised Code, may bring a civil action in a court of common pleas or other court of competent jurisdiction and, in addition to other relief, shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and all court costs."
IV
No appellate-level cases have been reported addressing the issue of whether Ohio's "Lemon Law" applies to lessees as well as purchasers of automobiles. In Reddin v. Toyota Motor Distrib., Inc. (Feb. 2, 1991), Wood App. No. WD-90-2, unreported, 1991 WL 21522, the court stated: "Ohio's Lemon Law was designed to provide a more effective remedy to consumers who purchase a defective automobile." By examining the text of Ohio's "Lemon Law" statute, it is apparent that a lessee is not provided with relief under the statute.
First, a cause of action is provided in R.C. 1345.75 to "any purchaser of a new motor vehicle." A lessee merely acquires the right to use the vehicle during the term of the lease and is not a "purchaser of a new motor vehicle." Therefore, Ohio's "Lemon Law" does not explicitly provide a cause of action for a lessee of a nonconforming new motor vehicle.
Second, R.C. 1345.72 sets out the relief available to the purchaser of a motor vehicle that does not conform to its express warranty. Pursuant to R.C. 1345.72(B)(1) after a reasonable number of attempts at repair, the consumer may elect to have the manufacturer return to him the full purchase price of the motor vehicle. Additionally, R.C. 1345.72(D)(1) and (D)(2) set out an explicit method to apportion damages recovered under Ohio's "Lemon Law" when the consumer has an outstanding obligation on the motor vehicle "under a loan or retail installment sales contract or the interest of any secured party." There is no similar method provided for distributing damages which may be available to a lessee who has an obligation to a lessor under a lease agreement of the nonconforming motor vehicle.
Third, the definitions of "consumer" and "full purchase price" in R.C. 1345.71(A) and (F), respectively, further demonstrate that Ohio's "Lemon Law" does not provide relief to the lessee of a nonconforming new motor vehicle. In R.C. 1345.71(A), "consumer" is defined as the purchaser of the new motor vehicle, any party to whom the car is transferred during the term of the warranty, or any person entitled to enforce the terms of the warranty. While this definition does not specifically exclude a lessee, viewed in light of the relief provided under R.C. 1345.72, it is clear that "consumer" applies to a purchaser and not a lessee of a motor vehicle. Further, under R.C. 1345.71(F), "full purchase price" is defined as the contract price of the motor vehicle and all charges incurred by the buyer of the motor vehicle. Even if a lessee was held to be included in the applicable definition of "consumer," the relief he would be entitled to, the full purchase price, is defined by monies expended by the buyer of the motor vehicle. A lessee is not a buyer of the motor vehicle.
It is clear, therefore, that while Ohio's "Lemon Law" provides a cause of action and relief for the purchaser of a vehicle that does not conform to its express warranty, a similar cause of action and relief are not explicitly set out for the lessee of a nonconforming vehicle. In the instant case, Johnson leased a 1987 Chrysler Conquest under to a written lease agreement with Mike Albert. Mike Albert was acting as the agent for the owner of the car, Fifth Third. During the term of the lease, Fifth Third remained the owner of the vehicle. According to the terms of the lease, Johnson could not transfer, sublease, rent, or otherwise affect Fifth Third's ownership of the vehicle he was leasing. Pursuant to Ohio's "Lemon Law," relief provided by the statute is limited to consumers who are purchasers of nonconforming new motor vehicles. Further, such relief that is available is defined, by the statute, as monies expended by the purchaser in buying the motor vehicle. Therefore, as a lessee, Johnson is not entitled to relief under R.C. 1345.71 through 1345.77.
V
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to Johnson's first and third causes of action and that Chrysler is entitled to judgment on those claims as a matter of law. As a lessee, Johnson is not entitled to relief pursuant to Ohio's "Lemon Law," R.C. 1345.71 through 1345.77.
Accordingly, the court finds that Chrysler's motion for partial summary judgment as to Johnson's first and third causes of action is well taken and it is hereby granted.
Motion granted.