McMichen v. Martin Burks Chevrolet, Inc.

197 S.E.2d 395, 128 Ga. App. 482, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1527
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 13, 1973
Docket47874
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 395 (McMichen v. Martin Burks Chevrolet, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McMichen v. Martin Burks Chevrolet, Inc., 197 S.E.2d 395, 128 Ga. App. 482, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

The sole question for determination is the correctness of the trial court’s ruling which has been certified for immediate review whereby there were stricken from a recast complaint prayers for punitive damages and attorney fees.

As recast, the complaint recited purchase by plaintiff from defendant of a 1968 Chevrolet station wagon; that prior to the execution of the sales contract an authorized agent "represented to plaintiff that said vehicle was still under manufacturer’s warranty and that said automobile had been driven only 26,109 miles” which figure was stated on the odometer; and that defendant had run the odometer backward from approximately 53,000 miles. An additionally alleged fraudulent artifice was acceptance of plaintiffs check for $25 to cover the charge for transferring the manufacturer’s warranty which check was not used but later returned to plaintiff.

The gravamen of the complaint is contained in paragraph 12 reading "That the defendant made false *484 representations to plaintiff concerning the mileage and manufacturer’s warranty on said vehicle; that the defendant knew said representations were false; that said representations were made for the purpose of deceiving plaintiff and to keep him from exercising his own judgment in signing Exhibit 'A’ [sales contract]; that plaintiff relied on and was deceived by said misrepresentations; and plaintiff has suffered loss and damage as a result thereof.”

The motion to strike punitive damages and attorney fees was based upon the complaint being one for breach of contract in which instance punitive damages are not allowable under Code § 20-1405.

We have quoted in full the allegations in paragraph 12 because these meet the five requisites needed to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentations. Gem City Motors, Inc. v. Minton, 109 Ga. App. 842 (1) (137 SE2d 522). "Where fraud and deceit in the sale of an automobile is proved, it is a jury question whether the aggravating circumstances of the alleged tort warrant the imposition of punitive damages. [Cit.]” Rustin Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Kendricks, 123 Ga. App. 679, 680 (3) (182 SE2d 178).

Code § 20-1404 authorizes imposition of attorney fees as a part of the damages where the defendant has acted "in bad faith.” Accordingly in Champion v. Martin, 124 Ga. App. 275 (183 SE2d 571) this court ruled that in a suit for fraud and deceit the plaintiff is entitled to have submitted to the jury the matter of allowance of attorney fees. See also John C. Jackson, Inc. v. Hatch, 115 Ga. App. 623 (155 SE2d 676). Of course the matter of evidence sustaining the allegations of wilful and deliberate concealment as well as bad faith in accomplishing the deceit must be sustained by evidence upon a trial.

Judgment reversed.

Hall, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CARCO SUPPLY COMPANY v. Dick Clem, Master Plumber, Inc.
391 S.E.2d 134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson
335 S.E.2d 157 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Trailmobile, Inc. v. Barton Environmental, Inc.
306 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Hubacher v. Volkswagen Central, Inc.
298 S.E.2d 533 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Hayes v. Irwin
541 F. Supp. 397 (N.D. Georgia, 1982)
Brown v. Joiner International, Inc.
523 F. Supp. 333 (S.D. Georgia, 1981)
ADBE Distributing Co. v. Hundred East Credit Corp.
275 S.E.2d 347 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Michael N. Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corporation
621 F.2d 180 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Price v. Mitchell
268 S.E.2d 743 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Hill Aircraft & Leasing Corporation v. Flanders
239 S.E.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Minter v. Reid
237 S.E.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc.
237 S.E.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Lancaster v. Eberhardt
233 S.E.2d 880 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Hiller v. Culbreth
228 S.E.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Mooney v. Tallant
397 F. Supp. 680 (N.D. Georgia, 1975)
City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner
203 S.E.2d 729 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 S.E.2d 395, 128 Ga. App. 482, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmichen-v-martin-burks-chevrolet-inc-gactapp-1973.