Jordan v. Transnational Motors, Inc
212 Mich. App. 94, 537 N.W.2d 471 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When awarding attorney's fees under remedial consumer protection statutes like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, a court must consider the statutes' goals of enabling consumers to bring claims and cannot base the award almost exclusively on the low monetary value of the judgment obtained.
Facts:
- Plaintiff purchased a new 1986 Mazda RX 7 Turbo from defendant Seaway Motors, Inc., for $25,475.10.
- The car was accompanied by express written warranties.
- Defendant Transnational Motors, Inc., was designated as Mazda’s representative for warranty assistance.
- While the car was still under warranty, Plaintiff experienced substantial difficulties with it, leading to a legal dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint against Seaway Motors, Inc., and Transnational Motors, Inc., in circuit court, alleging violations of consumer protection laws.
- The case was submitted to mediation, where an evaluation of $7,500 was rendered in favor of Plaintiff.
- Defendants accepted the evaluation, but Plaintiff rejected it.
- The case was subsequently remanded to the district court for trial.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff for $7,600.
- Plaintiff petitioned the district court for $21,790.75 in attorney fees and over $2,400 in costs.
- The district court awarded Plaintiff $3,000 in attorney fees and $1,000 in costs.
- Plaintiff appealed the fee award to the circuit court, which affirmed the district court's decision.
- Plaintiff (as appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees based primarily on the low amount of the jury's verdict, thereby failing to consider the remedial purpose of the consumer protection statutes that authorize such fees?
Opinions:
Majority - Neff, P.J.
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the remedial nature of the consumer protection acts involved. The purpose of fee-shifting provisions in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) is to provide consumers with a means to obtain judgments where they would otherwise be prohibited by the high cost of litigation. These remedial statutes must be liberally construed to achieve their goals. The district court found the attorney's time, skill, and hourly rate to be reasonable, yet drastically reduced the fee award based almost solely on the low monetary result of the case. Tying attorney's fees so closely to a low-value recovery thwarts the purpose of these statutes, as it would become economically impossible for attorneys to represent consumers, effectively closing the courthouse doors to the very people the acts are intended to protect.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for consumer protection litigation because it mandates that trial courts look beyond the monetary value of a case when calculating attorney's fees. It solidifies the principle that fee-shifting statutes are not merely about compensation, but about public policy and ensuring access to justice for consumers with valid, but low-dollar, claims. By requiring courts to consider the remedial goals of these statutes, the ruling makes it more economically viable for attorneys to take on consumer cases, thereby strengthening the enforcement power of these laws against businesses.
