didn't know I bought or traded in a lemon

[LSiders]

What is the name of your state? Oregon
I bought a 1998 dodge durango, 17000 miles from a dealer ship.
Ask if there were any problems and was told no, that it has gone threw an inspection. Five years later I trade it in for a new toyota. They gave me 6500.00 trade in. Two months go by and I get a letter from toyota that says my trade in was previously declared a lemon, and the documents we signed provided for a resolution of this matter, they are not saying that we necessarily knew of this history but they have reappraised our trade-in and want us to pay them $2200.00. My question is: Is the dealership I bought the durango from at all responsible?
They sent me a copy of the carfax and it looks like the dealership I bought it from, purchased it at aution, serviced it four different times and sold it to me.

 

[cjbrown929]

lemon aid

I found some sites that note the confusion that even oregon attorneys have regarding lemon laws there. What I did find was disturbing.

Oregon appears to be (or was) a well-known state for "laundering" vehicles with branded titles, because the "branding" (which is noted on the title in most states)ie "LEMON LAW BUYBACK", does, or did not appear on an Oregon title. I would contact an attorney, as this appears to be a fairly complex issue. If you can demonstrate that the dealership was aware of the vehicles status, obviously this would be very helpful. One way you could demonstrate this is the fact that "dealer only" auctions almost always disclose lemon status. A dealer only auction is where only, for instance, dodge dealers are allowed to attend. Did you buy the truck from a Dodge dealer who attended a "dealer only" auction?

 

[dallas702]

Tell Toyota to kiss your ass. You traded fairly at a professional dealership who had the duty to appraise the value of the car correctly. If anyone has to eat the $2200 it's the dealership......unless you knowingly bought it as a defective vehicle and "washed" the title yourself. Toyota can try to go after the dealer you bought the car from, but that won't get far. Unless there is specific language in your contract that allows them to find defects and alter the value of your trade-in after the fact/after your contract is established, you have a valid, signed, dated, money/product exchanged, legal, binding contract.

I can't imagine anyone knowingly signing a contract with a car dealer that allowed the dealer to find problems later and change the value of the trade-in. At the least you should be able to undo the deal because there was not a "meeting of the minds" (unless you knew about, understood, and perhaps initialed a clause that stated this agreement). If you did that you are screwed.

 

[cjbrown929]

lemon disclosure

Dealerships routinely have customers who are trading in a vehicle sign a declaration that the vehicle, to the best of their knowledge, (among other things) is not a lemon law buyback.

You state that "the documents we signed provided for a resolution of this matter." I have seen this happen several times. The dealer who took in the lemon law buyback is NATURALLY going to pursue you first.

The car cannot be "professionally appraised" any more than a house when crucial information, such as its lemon status was not immediately available, or intentionally omitted (not by you, of course).

What do the documents you signed say?

 

[dallas702]

CJ is right about the contract. You must identify the specific information regarding this situation, and see what your obligations might be.

As far as the "appraisal" I disagree. Car dealers ARE professionals. Any time they assess the value of a trade-in they are appraising it. Whether or not they do a good job of that appraisal is not the responsibility of the owner of the car. It is common for several professionals from the shop(s) to look at a vehicle...especially if the value is over $10K. If one of those trained pros doesn't identify defects it is not the fault of the owner. Also, since it is easy for dealerships to trace the history of a car through computer records, the burden falls further on their professional status.

I know that the auto industry has lobbied legislatures heavily to protect themselves, but they are still considered far more knowledgeable, and therefore bear a greater burden in establishing value before a contract is signed.

For every situation like this, where the dealership might lose a few bucks because they overlooked a defect, they win big on hundreds of trade-ins that are undervalued and then sold later at a tidy profit.

I'll never forget going through my mother's records to find that upon paying $20,000 for a brand new 1990 Buick Regal (which I still have), she was given a whopping $600 for her pristine, ultra low mileage 1977 Pontiac Firebird. I would have given that car away or stuck it in storage before letting the dealership STEAL it from her for that amount. Then, there is the matter of the $3500+ in "maintenance" it "required" over the next 40,000 miles. And you wonder why people don't trust dealerships.

 

[cjbrown929]

appraising lemons

One reason that car titles are (generally) branded "LEMON LAW BUYBACK" is that the problems that led to that designation are not necessarily immediately evident, ie cannot be easily determined even by an experienced appraiser. They could be of an intermittent nature, or could crash unexpectedly all at once ("catastrophic failure"?).

Dallas: on your mothers trade in, SOMETIMES the dealer and buyer will determine an acceptable "difference" price, and then lower both the PRICE of the vehicle being bought and the TRADE IN VALUE by the same amount to save the buyer $ in terms of sales tax, which is based on the selling price of the vehicle.

If she had negotiated a $23,000 selling price vs $3,800 for her trade, why not lower both #'s by $3,000? The "difference" would be identical, but her sales tax basis on the new vehicle, in calif, would save her 8% X $3,000, or $240. Not sure if this is what happened, but maybe.

 

[dallas702]

I do empathize with the dealers, but from watching them work since I was a small kid with a divorced mom I got a really bad taste. I can only remember once or twice that she wasn't screwed by dealerships, whether it was on the buy or on maintenance. The Buick listed at an unbelievable $19,855 ($17,001 list plus $1296 to remove the expensive custom wheels/wider tires and replace with smaller/cheaper tires/hubcaps, plus a "dealer mark-up of $1499, and $60 for a pin stripe that was on from the factory). I got my '89 Town Car for about that much. She paid every dime of it, and for the next 11 years before she died at 84 they overcharged, double charged, and charged her for work not even done. She kept every piece of paper from day 1, and if I could have sued the *******s I would have. This isn't just one dealership, though. it was always like that. So, yeah....I'm very biased.

 

[cjbrown929]

i'm a believer

dallas: the dealership charged $1300 to put CHEAPER wheels and tires on her new car? Was there a reason why she didn't just keep the fancy wheels? No wonder you hate them...

 

[dallas702]

Yeah, she never told me or my brother about all of it because she knew we'd make a big scene. With 323 miles on the clock they convinced her to spend another $524 for undercoat and paint sealer (she lived in northern CA...no snow, no rust). They put another set of new tires on at 15, 876 miles. At 19,700 mi. they changed the plugs, trans. filter, fuel filter, and a pile of other stuff ($340). And on and on and on.... Somewhere near the end they charged her for replacing the entire emergency brake release mechanism, my brother found out it had only been adjusted and lit a fire under their butts. He got reimbursed, but she passed away not long after. I inherited the car in 2001 with just over 40,000 miles on it. Every time I log my maintenance and look at the receipts I want to kick the sh*t out of those jerks, but I'm 600 miles away and it's not worth it.

 

[cjbrown929]

dealer blues

While we have strayed from the original thread, I feel that advice involving the very stressful arena of purchasing a new or used vehicle is always welcome.

In California, indeed in many states, substantial protections exist to protect consumers from a wide variety of unscrupulous activities. Knowledge is the key, and this site can help. Often, the cost of an attorney can easily be justified by either spending less $ to resolve a situation or recouping $ already spent.

LSiders: gather and keep all the documentation you can and contact an attorney. Most can give an evaluation for free over the phone.

The other thing you can do is just ignore the demands of the dealership. They will let you know if their own attorneys feel its worth pursuing, which I would guess it's not.