Vehicle Fraud Complaint

THE CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

REDACTED. : CASE NO:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. :

:

REDACTED OF :

REDACTED (d/b/a REDACTED :

OF  REDACTED). :

Defendants. :

                                                          /

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

            1.  At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, Redacted (“Redacted”) was a resident of Marion County, Florida.

2.  Defendant, Redacted of Redacted d/b/a Redacted (“Redacted”) at all times herein mentioned was, and now is a corporation organized and existing under laws of the State of Florida, and doing business in Marion County, Florida.

3.  Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to this lawsuit.  This lawsuit is timely filed.

4.  Venue is appropriate in Marion County, Florida because the cause of action accrued in Redacted, Florida.

5.  This action alleges damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and fees.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

             6.  In approximately May 2007, Plaintiff “Redacted” purchased a vehicle from Defendant “Redacted”.

7.  The above mentioned vehicle’s advertisements included but are not limited to the use of a window sticker found on the vehicle at the dealership as being a 2006 Toyota Highlander, herein after referred to as (“Toyota”).

8.  At all times the Plaintiff was led to believe that the “Toyota” was indeed a 2006 and paid the price of the vehicle according to its value as a 2006 model.

9.  In approximately February 2008, the Plaintiff attempted to trade-in the “Toyota” to Phillips Chrysler Jeep an automotive dealership in Redacted, FL.

10.  After researching the vehicle, Phillips Chrysler Jeep discovered the “Toyota” had two separate VIN (Vehicle Identification Numbers).  As a result of this discovery, Phillips Chrysler Jeep would not accept the vehicle as a trade-in.

11.  The VIN on the driver-side of the “Toyota” was listed as being a 2006, whereas the VIN found on the passenger-side was listed as 2005 model year vehicle.

12.  Upon further inspection, the “Toyota” was found to have several parts from a previously totaled vehicle.

13.  A subsequent CarFax report (See exhibit A) revealed one of the VIN found on the “Toyota” listed alerts asserting that problems corresponding to the title could be found for the following:

  1. SalvageJunkRebuilt

  2. Not Actual MileageExceeds Mechanical Limits

  3. Odometer Rollback Check

  4. Accident Check

14.  The above mentioned CarFax report also revealed that the “Toyota” was reported on 01/16/2007 as a Total Loss, implying that the vehicle was considered unsalvageable by the Department of Motor Vehicles.   

15.  On 3/17/08 the Plaintiff brought the car to Redacted Enterprises, a body shop located in Redacted, FL.  The corresponding visual inspection revealed several parts of the vehicle had been replaced with aftermarket parts. Please see exhibit B.

16.  To this date, the Plaintiff is still in possession of the vehicle.

COUNT I – FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

             17.  Paragraphs 1-16 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein.

18.  Defendants falsely represented to the Plaintiff that the “Toyota” was at all times material a 2006 model vehicle.  At the time of making this representation, Defendants knew it to be false and material to the Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the vehicle.

19.  In reliance on this representation, the Plaintiff was led to believe that the vehicle was a 2006 model vehicle which caused the Plaintiff to purchase the “Toyota” at a price valued by the Defendant’s as being fit for a 2006 model vehicle.

20.  The Defendant’s omissions that the vehicle was not a 2006 model year vehicle as well as the being a vehicle rebuilt after a severe accident, caused the Plaintiff to purchase the vehicle from the Defendant.

21.   The Defendant was aware that neither the vehicle was a model year 2006 vehicle nor that the vehicle was in a condition fit to resale at the price in which it was subsequently sold.

22.  Defendants have never supplied the Plaintiff with valid, legal reports stating the condition of the vehicle.

23.  During the entire period mentioned in this complaint, Defendants were advertising the vehicle as being a model year 2006 vehicle in excellent condition.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, together with costs of suit, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and any other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

                                   Michael Massey

Florida Bar No. 153680

Massey & Duffy

P.O. Box 2638

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 374-0877