Articles Posted in Lemon Law Lawyer

Short Answer about consumer fraud and odometer fraud

What is odometer fraud?      Selling or transferring a car knowing that the odometer is wrong or has been altered

Is odometer fraud consumer fraud?      Selling or transferring a car knowing that the odometer is wrong or has been altered or JUST selling a vehicle with an incorrect odometer reading.

In certain ways odometer fraud is a very simple concept. They are both state and federal laws dealing with odometer fraud. The basic concept is that if a seller of an automobile, or a transferor of an automobile, or where that the odometers and correct or has been tampered with in any way, there is an obligation to disclose same on the odometer disclosure statement. If you disclose same on the odometer disclosure statement that the mileage is improper were not accurately reflected on the vehicle would not have any liability either under the federal or state odometer law.
The federal law on odometer fraud requires the proving of knowledge of the mileage. However, the liability under state law does not require the same level of proof. Obviously, if you prove that an individual sold the vehicle or transferred the vehicle knowing the mileage was incorrect there is a claim for fraud. The basic defense to this claim is that there was disclosure. Naturally fraud claims carry the penalty punitive damages. However, it gets dicey when you are dealing with transferring or selling used motor vehicles where the seller claims ignorance or were unaware of the odometer discrepancy.

Continue reading ›

Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law that can be filed in Superior Court or in Administrative Court … – The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC – Google+

Source: Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law …

Bergen County Verdict in a car sales case

$174,000 verdict for purchaser who did not get the title



11-4-9287 Mehrnia v. Emporio Motor Group LLC, Chanc. Div.-Bergen Cnty. (Toskos, J.S.C.) (24 pp.) This case evolved from a dispute between several parties over their rights to the ownership of a used 2010 Ferrari. The car was sold several times. Plaintiff Mehrdad Mehrnia claimed that he purchased the vehicle for a price of $201,000. Defendant Hitfigure LLC claimed ownership of the 2010 Ferrari through a subsequent purchase for a price of $155,000. The dispute arose from the relationship between defendants Dream Cars National LLC and Gotham Dream Cars LLC and defendant Manhattan Leasing Enterprises Ltd. Gotham and Manhattan also claimed an ownership interest in the vehicle. At a time when Gotham was experiencing financial difficulties, Manhattan restructured their leasing arrangement, which led to Manhattan obtaining possession of the title to the 2010 Ferrari. Mehrnia purchased the car from Emporio Motor Group LLC, which had obtained the Ferrari from Manhattan. The Ferrari was later sold to Hitfigure. Mehrnia filed this litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that he was the owner of the Ferrari. He also asserted a consumer fraud and conversion claim against Gotham and Manhattan. Finally, Mehrnia included a civil conspiracy claim as to Emporio, Gotham and Manhattan, alleging that they conspired to deprive Mehrnia of his property.

Continue reading ›

DAMAGED CARS flag - Copy

The plaintiff, residing in Edison, New Jersey, says by way of complaint against the defendants as follows:
1. On or about September 28, 2013, the defendant, Auto Group, of East Brunswick, was a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
2. On or about that date, the defendant, MANUFACTURER, was also a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
3. On or about that date, the plaintiff acquired a used 2011 Acura MDX black, with 30,711 miles.
4. The vehicle was represented as a certified pre-owned vehicle and of higher quality than other certified pre-owned vehicles.
5. It was also specifically represented that the vehicle was not involved in any prior automobile accidents. The literature indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality and not in a prior automobile accident were both from the manufacturer and/or the selling dealer indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality than other used vehicles. The selling dealer specifically stated that the vehicle had not been in a prior automobile accident.
6. The plaintiff signed various documents including a retail installment sales contract and a buyer’s order to acquire the vehicle which the purchase price was $30,500.
7. As part of the transaction, the defendant dealership and/or the manufacturer issued a certified pre-owned warranty which the plaintiff paid a dollar amount for which is not disclosed in the appropriate paperwork. Continue reading ›


It is now apparent that Volkswagen appears to have significant legal troubles. Internet and news reports indicate the state of New Jersey has sued Volkswagen for selling vehicles with the inappropriate engines. It appears  the state of New Jersey has put a bid out the law firms to represent the state in pursuing Volkswagen to recoup various costs, presumably environmental costs. New Jersey is not the only state to have filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen as numerous other states have done the same thing. In addition, class actions have been filed against Volkswagen and have been designated multi district litigation or MDL. What this means is that all the Volkswagen lawsuits from around the country, each and every case, will be transferred, consolidated into this one federal court action which appears to be pending in California.

So not only does Volkswagen have the various lawsuits from the very states but they have been subject to numerous class actions which have been consolidated. It appears as though the only question is going to be when Volkswagen can no longer stand the pressure. One must assume that the financial pressure on Volkswagen is significant in light of the investigation and the lawsuits  from the states and the amount of money that they are potentially seeking in compensation for the alleged and admitted corporate fraud. Pursuant to the link attached hereto, Volkswagen has admitted the corporate fraud and is working with the very states including California to repair the vehicles or make sure that the vehicles comply with the various states law including California’s law on omissions. Continue reading ›


It appears as though General Motors was cited by the Federal Trade Commission with regard to selling certified used vehicles are certified preowned program which had open recalls the actually dangerous. In addition, the selling dealer’s also appeared to have been cited and find by the FTC. It is unclear what extent General Motors is responsible since they did not sell cars only their authorized, franchise dealers sold the vehicles. Under the certified preowned program selling dealer is obligated to inspect the car pursuant to General Motors standards. It would be the duty and obligation selling dealer to check for recalls and make sure that the vehicles have been repaired and recall something. I’m assuming, if the vehicles were owned by General Motors previously, it would be the responsibility of General Motors to repair and or for recalls. It is unclear to what extent the liability is based directly on General Motors were the liability is based on the actions of their authorized dealers. The complaint appears to indicate that the vehicles were sold with open recalls. It appears as though the FTC is holding the manufacture responsible for authorize, franchise dealers selling vehicles with open, dangerous, active recalls. I would guess, the ultimate, it is responsibility factor to make sure that these recalls are prepared at the authorized dealers in the CPO or certified preowned program.  The following was contained in the complaint

Since at least November 2014, Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements promoting the sale of “Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles.”Respondent establishes criteria for certifying pre-owned vehicles, which are then inspected and sold by Respondent’s local dealerships. Respondent provides consumers a 12-month/12,000-mile “bumper to bumper”

People ask me many of these questions:

Can I sue car dealership for breach of contract?

Can I sue a car dealership for false advertisement?

Can I sue a car dealership for lying?

Can you sue a car dealership?

Can you sue a car dealership for selling you a lemon?

Suing a car dealership is possible?

How to sue a car dealer?

How to sue a car dealer for misrepresentation?

The answer is yes but the matter can get complicated and you need solid, experienced legal help
Legal Help for car dealer claims
Continue reading ›

Bait and Switch

New Jersey does have laws that stop bait and switch practices by automobile dealers. An example would be to lure you into the dealer and then switch you from the advertised car. I have seen sales where the car that was advertised and was already sold by the time the customer went to he dealership then they switched the customer into another cat, or the advertised car was damages or never shown tot he potential customer.

Keep any advertisements and keep notes on when and where you saw the car on the internet so you can insist on the car that was advertised.. The real issue is what do you do and can you sue of they do not sell you the car that was advertised.

Lets look at this set of facts:

Car advertised on the dealer site for $20,000
Customer get to dealer and the price on the car is $50,000
Dealer refuses to sell the car.

Do you sue and if so what are the damages?

Continue reading ›

Consumer Class Actions and Defective Cars

There are some great websites that track class action recently filed. Please review the link.

Upon review of the site it lists a few recently filed class actions, specifically one involving Honda Hybrids There is a link to an actual copy of the over three hundred page complaint.

Usually the agreement will permit the finance company or bank to take the vehicle by self-help repossession without any further definition. The Uniform Commercial Code also permits a secured party to take a piece of collateral or the vehicle by self-help repossession. Again, self-help repossession is not specifically defined; however, it must be deemed obvious in light of the relationship between the parties.

Self-help repossession is where the finance company ‘helps themselves’ to take the vehicle back. One common question is whether or not there needs to be a notice to the owner of the vehicle prior to the ‘self-help repossession.’ There is no requirement under the Uniform Commercial Code, and there is usually no requirement under the written agreement between the parties. However, if the written agreement between the parties indicates there must be a type of pre-repossession notice, they must conduct same. If there are various calls between the parties with regard to late payments, this is not deemed and cannot be deemed a requirement, but rather an attempt by the finance company to have the lessee or driver of the vehicle make payments.

Contact Information