Felley v. Singleton, No. 2-98-0043 2nd Dist. 1/14/99 January 14, 1999 No. 2--98--0043 ____________________________________________________________ ___ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________ ___ BRIAN D. FELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS SINGLETON and CHERYL SINGLETON, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County. No. 97--SC--184 Honorable Richard W. Vidal, Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________ ____ PRESIDING JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Defendants, Thomas and Cheryl Singleton, appeal from an order entered by the circuit court of Boone County in this small claimsaction. Defendants contend that the trial court erred when it found that statements they made to plaintiff, Brian D. Felley, when he purchased a used car from them constituted an express warranty. We affirm.The relevant facts are not in dispute. On June 8, 1997, plaintiffwent to defendants' home to look at a used car that defendants had offered for sale by newspaper advertisement. The car was a 1991 Ford Taurus and had about 126,000 miles on it. After test driving the car and discussing its condition with defendants, plaintiff purchased the car from defendants for $5,800. At trial, plaintiff testified that he soon began experiencing problems with the car. On the second day after he bought the car,plaintiff noticed a problem with the clutch. Over the next few days, the clutch problem worsened to the point where plaintiff was unable to shift the gears no matter how far he pushed in the clutch pedal. Plaintiff presented an invoice dated June 18, 1997,showing that he paid $942.76 on that date for the removal and repair of the car's clutch. Plaintiff further testified that the car developed serious brake problems within the first month that he owned it. Plaintiff presented two invoices for work he had done on the car's brakes. One of the invoices shows that on July 9, 1997, plaintiff paid $971.18 for brake work on the car. The second invoice shows that on September 16, 1997, plaintiff paid $429.09 for additional brake work on the car. Plaintiff called Robert Hanover as an expert witness. Hanover is a technician at the Car X Muffler facility that performed the brake work on the car. Hanover is an underbody specialist with experience in diagnosing and repairing problems with clutches andbrakes. Hanover examined the car when plaintiff brought it in on July 9, 1997. His examination revealed that the rear brakes on the car were not functioning because the calipers had locked up and that the car was only braking on the front brakes. In order to fix this problem, Car X installed new calipers on the rear brakes. Hanover also testified that both the front and rear brakes needed the pads and rotors replaced. Based on his experience, Hanover stated that problems such as those with the car's brakes take considerable time to develop. Hanover opined that the car's brake problems therefore probably existed when plaintiff purchased the car. Hanover also testified that he was familiar with the type of workperformed on the car's clutch and that he had experience with Rock River Ford, the facility that performed the clutch work on the car. Based on his experience, his discussions with plaintiff regarding the clutch problem, and the invoice showing the repair work that was performed on the clutch, Hanover opined that theclutch was not in good operating condition when plaintiff purchased the car from defendants. Plaintiff called defendant Thomas Singleton (Thomas) as an adverse witness. Thomas testified that he and his wife had owned the car for about three years when plaintiff bought it. He recalled discussing the condition of the car with plaintiff but did not recall if plaintiff asked about specific aspects of the car such as the condition of the brakes. He told plaintiff that the only thing known to be wrong with the car was that it had a noise in the right rear and that a grommet (a connector having todo with a strut) was bad or missing. Thomas acknowledged that he told plaintiff that the car was in good condition. Plaintiff's testimony regarding his discussions with defendants included the following. Defendants told plaintiff that they drovethe car very little and that the car was well maintained. When hewas asked if he discussed specific aspects of the car with defendants, plaintiff responded: "We spoke of the transmission, per se, of the brakes, tires, oil changing, just went through the typical list of issues one would consider in a repurchase negotiation conversation with the seller. Q. Did either of them express their opinion as to the condition of those mechanical systems? A. They conveyed the car was in good shape with the exception of the missing grommet. That's a pretty accurate summary statement."Plaintiff testified that the fact that defendants told him that the car was in good mechanical condition was a primary consideration in his decision to buy the car. Defendant Cheryl Singleton (Cheryl) also testified at trial. Cheryl took care of all the maintenance on the car during the three years that she and her husband owned it. She had the oil changed every three months. In addition, she had a "stabilizing pin" installed on the front end, had a new battery installed, andhad the front tires replaced with new tires. She did not experience any problems with the clutch or the brakes. On cross-examination, Cheryl acknowledged that she and her husband told plaintiff that the car was "in good mechanical condition." After hearing the evidence, the trial court invited counsel to write informal letters to the court summarizing their clients' positions. The trial court subsequently filed a written memorandum of decision that stated, in relevant part:"Defendants represented to Plaintiff that the automobile was in 'good mechanical condition', and that they experienced no brake problems. The question before the Court is whether the representations madeconstituted an Express Warranty as found in the Weng case, or whether the auto was sold 'as is' and representations made were mere 'puffing'. The court notes that a substantial amount of money was paid for the car, and this is one of the factor[s] which would cause the buyer to reasonably rely on affirmations that the automobile was in good mechanical shape. It makes little sense to pay thousands of dollars, and then expect to immediately
View Full Document
Unlocking...