00-2977 Estate of John D. Riley v. Ford Motor Company

Listen to this article

“First, sending a fax to the consumer’s attorney is not the equivalent of a timely delivery of a refund check to the consumer. Second, delivery of a refund check to a dealership’s sales manager is not the equivalent of a timely delivery of a refund check to the consumer.

“The law requires that the manufacturer provide a refund to the consumer or a comparable new motor vehicle to the consumer no later than thirty days after the consumer’s offer. Wis. Stat. sec. 218.015(2)(c). Thus, Ford did not provide Riley with his refund in a timely manner. This is so whether we determine that the thirtieth day fell on Feb. 28, 1999, or March 1, 1999. There is no evidence that Ford provided a refund to Riley on either day. In short, we do not reach the construction of Wis. Stat. sec. 990.001(4)(a) and (b), and sec. 218.015, because even if we were to hold that sec. 990.001(4)(a) and (b) was applicable and that Ford did get an extra day, there is no evidence that Ford complied with the Lemon Law.”

However, we disagree with the trial court’s calculation of plaintiff’s pecuniary loss because pecuniary loss when a lemon is a leased vehicle does not include the current value of the lease, under the pecuniary loss provisions of sec. 218.015(7).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Kieffer, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Patrick L. Wells, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Vincent P. Megna, Waukesha; William S. Pocan, Waukesha; Susan M. Grzeskowiak, Waukesha