Answers Now, or Hassles Later

With economic uncertainties mounting, consumers involved in major transactions more than ever need to assert their rights from the beginning.

It’s not as desirable to have to complain after the fact, and a lawsuit is a last resort, usually a thoroughly disagreeable way to achieve satisfaction, if available at all at an acceptable price.

Such thoughts come to mind in examining the case of Mark Jimenez and his girlfriend, Karren Trias, of Huntington Beach.

In March, they bought a 1996 Honda Civic with 27,797 miles on it from Honda Santa Ana. They paid $13,100.

Jimenez says the couple asked three employees of the dealership, including the used-car manager, whether the car had ever been in an accident. All, according to Jimenez, said no.

According to Bill Gengler, chief spokesman for the California Department of Motor Vehicles, state law gives buyers of used cars the right, before purchase, to take the vehicle to a mechanic or a body shop to check for defects.

Had Jimenez and Trias done this, Jimenez now says, they never would have gone forward with the purchase, because they would have discovered that the car was damaged.

But they didn’t, and when the couple got the car home, having paid their money, they discovered damage that they believed must have resulted from an accident.

The rear bumper skin was out of alignment. There was a broken pump in the washer fluid reservoir. Areas in the front and rear of the car had been repainted, and certain body parts under the front had been scraped.

A subsequent inspection by an independent firm confirmed, however, that there was no bending of the auto frame, which would have been much more serious damage, perhaps compromising the vehicle’s safety.

Honda Santa Ana has repaired or is about to repair everything at no expense to Jimenez and Trias. It also paid for the frame inspection. The total cost of inspection and repairs will be less than $430.

But there remains a dispute over Jimenez’s request for additional “consideration” from the dealership, which he feels might reasonably be $2,000 in cash.

The only alternative, he thinks, would be for Honda Santa Ana to give him and Trias a new car to replace the used one. But he doesn’t favor that, because “we’re not unhappy with the car.”

So, Jimenez asserts, cash is the answer. “After all, they didn’t tell us the truth about the accident,” he states.

Tom Lesniak, general manager of Honda Santa Ana, said that as far as he is concerned, it has not been proved that there ever was an accident.

Lesniak said the Santa Ana dealership obtained the vehicle, along with many others, when it bought a Las Vegas Honda agency. It was obligated under California law to inspect only for frame damage, not minor damage.

“We told them [Jimenez and Trias] there was no frame damage, and there wasn’t,” he said. “I would say 75% of all used cars 1 or 2 years old have had some frame work. That doesn’t mean there’s been an accident.”

As for the broken pump in the window washer fluid reservoir, “it’s plastic,” Lesniak said. “Vegas is a lot hotter than here. I can’t tell you how the bottle cracked.”

And as for the repainting, Lesniak said, “80% of our used cars have had some painting done. We spend a lot of money on the appearance of these cars.”

But, in any event, he added, “we’ve bent over backward for this guy.”

And, he went on, answering Jimenez’s demand for $2,000, “We’re not going to do it. . . . I can’t be held up like this over a used car. . . . He’s not being reasonable. It’s just absurd. I’d rather buy the damned car back.”

But, on second thought, Lesniak said, he might be willing to give Jimenez and Trias a set of new tires when the present ones wear out. “That’s one thing, but $2,000, that’s not right.”

I asked two experts whether they felt the couple are entitled to the cash.

Bob Friedlander, supervising special investigator for the DMV, said no.

“When you buy a used vehicle, is there any expectation that it’s going to be perfect?” Friedlander asked. “And will the dealer necessarily know? He’s not required to check. . . .

“I kind of agree with the dealer. . . . I’m surprised the dealer is even willing to give him a new pair of tires.”

Rosemary Shahan, head of a private group in Sacramento, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, also was disinclined to sympathize all that much with Jimenez on the money.

“It sounds to me that the dealer is willing to make good on the repairs,” she said. “If there’s just minor stuff, it doesn’t rise to the level of where you’d say it is fraudulent. The really big cases are when they put your life in jeopardy by welding the front end of one car with the back end of another. That’s salvage fraud. You have some instances in which the consumer buys the car in good faith and it literally falls apart.”

My editor suggested, however, checking with an attorney to find what the equities here might be.

Los Angeles trial lawyer Bernie Bernheim raised the point of what Jimenez and Trias would say if they tried to resell the car and were asked if it had been in an accident.

“They could be exposed to a fraud suit if they said no,” Bernheim said. “If the question is asked, they will have to say yes, and the market value of the car may decline. They would then have been better off had they never known about the accident.”

So there are potential losses here, the lawyer asserted, and some cash compensation might be reasonable, after all.

*

Ken Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventure at (213) 237-7060, or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com