Nuisance lawsuits suck.

A guy sold a car that was over 30 years old with 160,000 miles for $3k.  Buyer came with a friend, looked it over, went for a ride and bought it 4 days later. 

Seller made two Bills of Sale saying As-Is and describing the car and VIN.  He signed both copies, had he buyer sign both, each person got a copy.  The transaction took place on his front porch where later he discovered it was captured on the Ring doorbell.

3 months later he gets a certified letter citing specific phrases in their conversation accusing the seller of misrepresenting the car and implying some warrantee because he sold himself as a mechanic.  A lawyer friend told him to tear it up and forget about it.

Yesterday morning, (now 7 months after the sale) getting ready for work, doorbell rings, it's a cop.  He was served with a summons.  Guy is suing for the car, taxes, inconvenience, pain & suffering etc. etc., totaling $15 - $20,000!

Now we learn the guy that came to look at the car with the buyer was actually his lawyer.

No matter how it goes, it's going to cost more than the value of the car to make this go away.  

I've been fighting something like that for two years now, only it's $200,000 ... and she's convinced a different lawyer to withhold another $250,000 that we're entitled to because she says there's a claim against me ... which there isn't

In reply to 914Driver :

You could get a lawyer to file a Motion for Summary Judgment and attach the Bill of Sale. That should end it for less than the cost of the car.

If the guy that came with him is a Lawyer he should know the written contract wins over any verbal statements. I'd report him to the bar for not acting in good faith.

If that was his fleabag ambulance chaser with him, he should have advised his client that the vehicle was not worth it. Following through with the sale and subsequent filing is misconduct. The lawyer going in knew this was a scam to extort money from someone who most likely can't afford much anything and probably will be homeless declaring bankruptcy to clear the claim. I'd report it to the bar and make a motion to remove plaintiffs counsel as they were part of the deal and cannot act as an impartial, or anti kickback, counselor with his clients best interest and the rule of law.

Either way, someone is getting screwed.

Steve_Jones said:

If the guy that came with him is a Lawyer he should know the written contract wins over any verbal statements. I'd report him to the bar for not acting in good faith.

Damn. As someone who buys and sells cars with some regularity, I'll consider this a very cautionary tale. I feel sorry for the seller in this story. Hopefully Steve Jones is right and the written contract makes this go away quickly and inexpensively. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

"The judge is then required to help you from making a legal error".

No, no he's not.  Nope.  Not in any jurisdiction I've ever heard of.   If it's a small claims court, the judge might go easier on rules of evidence and such, as it's designed for pro se litigants generally.  The judge is not required to tell you if you've made a mistake.  In most situations, he is forbidden from telling you you've made a mistake.   It's his job to only let in and consider the evidence that the evidentiary rules say is allowable. 

A reasonable judge might toss this at the summary judgment stage as suggested, but it's definitely not a certainty.

Now, if the lawyer who came with buyer is the same lawyer making the threats and filing the suit, then buyer does have a big problem here.  You can't (except in some very limited circumstances) be both a witness and counsel for the same side.   As for reporting him to the state bar, that may or may not do anything - depends on the state, and also depends on that lawyer's reputation for shady conduct.  Generally, the state bar is most concerned with lawyers who steal from their own clients. Reporting him might be worth a try, though. 

It sounds to me like buyer's shyster buddy is trying to strongarm him into taking the car back.  Bet anything he'll make an offer to the seller to just undo the deal and he'll "forget about everything else".  Yeah, it's a E36 M3ty tactic. 

Best bet is that he hires that same lawyer friend (or someone he reccomends) to file a counterclaim for fraud and put the ball back in his court.  It'll probably cost him some money, but it might make them go away.

Wait, I always thought that if you win a case, you can make the other party pay your legal fees. Would that be true here?

Just find a lawyer, seems it shouldn't be hard to win, and then make the accuser pay the fees?

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Ideally, I would be countersuing for all the same E36 M3 plus lawyer fees.

Also, can I just say that I find it unbelievable that there is any "juice worth the squeeze" in lawsuits like this. 

Like, what is the possible win/settle rate? Does this guy fire off 150 lawsuits a year and average $500 profit from each one, which is then split with the lawyer and they each make 37.5k? Seems like a lot of work for not much return. 

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Also, can I just say that I find it unbelievable that there is any "juice worth the squeeze" in lawsuits like this. 

Like, what is the possible win/settle rate? Does this guy fire off 150 lawsuits a year and average $500 profit from each one, which is then split with the lawyer and they each make 37.5k? Seems like a lot of work for not much return. 

I'm wondering if this is just a larger dollar scam of the same pretense.

Do not ignore it or just tell them to pound sand, that gets you a default judgment.  
 

Report it to your homeowners insurance carrier and potentially to your umbrella policy carrier if there is one.  That will hopefully get you a paid for defense.  They can then submit the documents and go to the hearing with you.  In small claims there is no MSJ usually.  
 

I deal with this sort of thing daily.  Yes many lawsuits are a nuisance trivial pain in the ass, but people keep at it as it keeps getting them paid from the generous judges and juries out there.   Some states are far worse than others (looking at you FL, GA, LA)

In reply to Sonic :

I'm curious on reporting to homeowners insurance? Seems this day in age they'd rather not insure anybody with a minuscule amount of risk. I personally wouldn't for that very reason. They'll just roll over and pay just to not mess with it imo, which is what they want the plaintiff to do.

So what again why am I reporting this to my insurance company? They weren't involved at all in any proceedings nor needed to facilitate this transaction.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to 914Driver :

You could get a lawyer to file a Motion for Summary Judgment and attach the Bill of Sale. That should end it for less than the cost of the car.

Do this plus report the lawyer to the state bar association and any other states that may have reciprocity with their bar to practice in that state. 

In what state are used car sales not on an "as is" basis.  I've been hosed a few times on used car sales and who tf is buying them not doing all their research.  That's mind blowing to me.

camopaint0707 said:

In what state are used car sales not on an "as is" basis.  I've been hosed a few times on used car sales and who tf is buying them not doing all their research.  That's mind blowing to me.

I'm thinking because this might be a flip maybe and even if it isn't, they are classifying the plaintiff as a mechanic because the vehicle may have new tires, fresh oil change and brakes, etc. This to me as a layperson means you don't want an unreliable or unsafe vehicle on the road. So, they are assuming he misrepresented himself and the vehicle which is fraud. That's how they are trying to run around the end of the "as-is" condition on the bill of sale.

I find it coincidental that the certified letter was sent 90 days later... And while the plaintiff had ring, I would find out if the state is a single consent or not. I have a feeling the defendant recorded everything without the plaintiffs knowledge to have all the right things to say...

In reply to Ranger50 :

Tbh, his profession is irrelavant.  So what if he's a mechanic, it's a personal transaction (unless it isn't).  Nothing to with the seller or buyers job.  And unless he flat out stated some guarantee or promise it's all hearsay.  His reliable might not equate to the buyers reliable.  And that's the risk anyone takes with a used car.  

Ranger50 said:

camopaint0707 said:

In what state are used car sales not on an "as is" basis.  I've been hosed a few times on used car sales and who tf is buying them not doing all their research.  That's mind blowing to me.

I'm thinking because this might be a flip maybe and even if it isn't, they are classifying the plaintiff as a mechanic because the vehicle may have new tires, fresh oil change and brakes, etc. This to me as a layperson means you don't want an unreliable or unsafe vehicle on the road. So, they are assuming he misrepresented himself and the vehicle which is fraud. That's how they are trying to run around the end of the "as-is" condition on the bill of sale.

I find it coincidental that the certified letter was sent 90 days later... And while the plaintiff had ring, I would find out if the state is a single consent or not. I have a feeling the defendant recorded everything without the plaintiffs knowledge to have all the right things to say...

I read it as the seller has Ring video. 

In reply to camopaint0707 :

If he is a mechanic, you have skills a normal layperson would not possess. Same with every other working profession out there. Do I know how to fix a downed power line? Nope leave that to the linemen of the power company. Do I know how to weld? Sure but do I it as my job? No. A welding everyday welder is going to have skills I don't possess. Am I a lawyer? Nope, I just play one on the internet. 

In reply to dyintorace :

But are you going to remember everything that was said that day? Sounds like he reviewed it after the certified letter which matches what the letter said.

Ring to me is passive until action is found. Did he purposefully use the ring to save himself? If the buyer has a copy of the conversation, which again is very coincidental, that is very proactive of them suggesting they should have requested consent to taping. Again depends on the consent rule. Jmo.

camopaint0707 said:

In reply to Ranger50 :

Tbh, his profession is irrelavant.  So what if he's a mechanic, it's a personal transaction (unless it isn't).  Nothing to with the seller or buyers job.  And unless he flat out stated some guarantee or promise it's all hearsay.  His reliable might not equate to the buyers reliable.  And that's the risk anyone takes with a used car.  

That stated promise would also have to be in writing, and signed by both parties to be valid since there is a written contract. A verbal statement can not override a written contract in any State. There are such things as verbal contracts and they can be enforced but once it is in writing all revisions must also be in writing.

Granted everything I know about this is gleaned from my extensive experience listening to podcasts, but I don't think that they'd be able to pursue any warranty claim.  There is a used car lemon law in NY, but that only applies to dealers.  And it also only applies to cars that are younger than 100k miles, I think.  I'm pretty sure that there's no state in the union where a private party car sale isn't by definition "as-is".  Mechanic or not, the seller would have to be considered to sell cars as part of his regular business or trade or, say, have a dealer's license, and even if he was selling a couple cars a year, if he's not meeting the threshold where a dealer's license is required, there's a good argument that he's not a merchant of vehicles.  My guess is that the claim would have to rest on some sort of fraudulent activity.  Like if the seller knew the vehicle had been in an accident and lied when asked about it.  Or if he said that the engine had been replaced when he knew that it had not.  If he simply said it was "reliable" or "a good car", that's just sales puffery and worthless.  He would have had to have made a quantifiable statement about the car that could be objectively proven or disproven.  Even if he's a mechanic by trade and he said it was a "reliable car", that's not fraud. 

Steve_Jones said:

camopaint0707 said:

In reply to Ranger50 :

Tbh, his profession is irrelavant.  So what if he's a mechanic, it's a personal transaction (unless it isn't).  Nothing to with the seller or buyers job.  And unless he flat out stated some guarantee or promise it's all hearsay.  His reliable might not equate to the buyers reliable.  And that's the risk anyone takes with a used car.  

That stated promise would also have to be in writing, and signed by both parties to be valid since there is a written contract. A verbal statement can not override a written contract in any State. There are such things as verbal contracts and they can be enforced but once it is in writing all revisions must also be in writing.

This is where the seller is having a problem. I'm assuming here but I bet vehicles condition as stated is as-is. No written language saying that a warrantee is neither expressed or implied. And because it doesn't say it, it's open to "interpretation" now.