BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 238 Page 1 Date of Hearing: September 9, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 238 (Huber) - As Amended: September 2, 2011 FOR CONCURENCE SUBJECT : Motor vehicle saleS contracts KEY ISSUE : should RESCISSION BE ELIMINATED AS A REMEDY UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE SALES FINANCE ACT FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ITEMIZED FEES ON AUTOMOBILE CONTRACTS? SYNOPSIS This is a new measure sponsored by the California New Car Dealers Association. It would eliminate the existing remedy of contract rescission for specified violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act regarding disclosure of certain government fees, such as the Vehicle License Fee, and required subtotals. Car dealers argue that this remedy is unnecessary and excessive for technical and minor violations that cause no harm to a buyer. The dealers argue that the bill preserves the underlying obligations, which would remain potentially enforceable under other provisions of law. There is no known opposition. SUMMARY : Provides that a motor vehicle conditional sales contract shall not be made unenforceable solely because of a violation of requirements to disclose specified government fees and the total of those and other fees. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that a conditional sales contract shall not be made unenforceable solely because of a violation by the seller regarding the disclosure of amounts paid to public officials regarding various fees and the subtotal of those fees with other amounts. 2)Provides that a buyer shall not be excused from payment of any finance charge solely due to the above violation with respect to a holder of a conditional sales contract that was acquired without actual knowledge of the violation. 3)Provides that, in addition to any other remedies that may be AB 238 Page 2 available, the buyer is entitled to any actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of the above provisions. 4)States that nothing shall affect any legal rights, claims, or remedies otherwise available under law, and would apply only to conditional sales contracts executed or entered into on or after January 1, 2012. 5)Contains an urgency clause, allowing this bill to take effect immediately upon enactment. EXISTING LAW : 1)Sets forth, under the Automobile Sales Finance Act (also known as the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act), numerous requirements with regard to disclosures required in an automobile conditional sale contract, including, among other things, amounts paid to public officials for vehicle license, registration, transfer, titling fees, and California tire fees. Those disclosures also include the subtotal of those fees and other items. (Civil Code section 2982.) 2)Provides that if the seller, except as the result of an accidental or bona fide error in computation, violates the above disclosure provisions, the conditional sale contract shall not be enforceable except by a bona fide purchaser or until the violation is corrected, as specified, and, if the violation is not corrected, the buyer may recover from the seller the total amount paid pursuant to the terms of the contract. (Civil Code section 2983.) 3)Provides further that if a holder acquires a conditional sales contract without actual knowledge of specified violations, the contract shall be valid and enforceable by the holder except the buyer is excused from payment of the unpaid finance charge, unless the violation is corrected. If the holder acquired the conditional sales contract with knowledge of specified violations, the contract shall not be enforceable except by a bona fine purchaser unless the violation is corrected, as specified, and if the violation is not corrected, the buyer may recover specified amounts. (Civ. Code Sec. 2983.1.) 4)Provides that when a contract is not enforceable under the above sections, the buyer may elect to retain the motor AB 238 Page 3 vehicle and continue the contract in force, or may, with reasonable diligence, elect to rescind the contract and return the motor vehicle. The value of the returned vehicle shall be credited as restitution by the buyer without any decrease that results from the passage of time in the cash price of the motor vehicle, as specified. (Civ. Code Sec. 2983.1.) 5)Provides that reasonable attorney's fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party in any action on a contract or purchase order. (Civ. Code Sec. 2983.4.) FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill seeks to respond to recent lawsuits against car dealers alleging violations of existing law regarding failure to properly disclose government fees collected by dealers under the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA). In response to concerns expressed by the bill's sponsor, California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA), about the ability of car buyers to rescind contracts when dealers fail to comply with statutory requirements regarding disclosure of these fees, this bill would remove rescission as a remedy for those violations. According to the author: AB 238 narrowly refines the ASFA's disproportionate remedy provisions by providing that a contract shall not be rendered unenforceable solely because of a discrepancy in the disclosure of specified government fees. This bill does ensure that consumers retain the right to sue dealers that violate these disclosure requirements in Superior Court in an effort to obtain monetary damages and attorney's fees. This proposal is the result of a careful collaboration between interested parties to ensure that consumers are adequately protected from unscrupulous dealers, and that dealers who make technical disclosure violations are held accountable without the prospect of a business-threatening catastrophic lawsuit. The Automobile Sales Finance Act Requires Itemized Disclosure of All Costs In A Sales Contract. The Remedy For Violation Of This Obligation Is That The Contract Is Unenforceable. The ASFA seeks to protect purchasers of motor vehicles from excessive charges by requiring conditional sale contracts to contain numerous disclosures. AB 238 Page 4 The California Legislature enacted the ASFA in 1961? to increase protection for the unsophisticated motor vehicle consumer and provide additional incentives to dealers to comply with the law. The ASFA serves to protect motor vehicle purchasers from abusive selling practices and excessive charges by requiring full disclosure of all items of cost. Under the ASFA, every conditional sale contract must contain "in a single document all of the agreements of the buyer and seller with respect to the total cost and the terms of payment for the motor vehicle, including any promissory notes or any other evidences of indebtedness." Conditional sale contracts must also contain all disclosures and notices required under section 2982." (Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., 186 Cal. App. 4th 983 (2010).) Relevant to this bill, section 2982 of the ASFA requires specification of amounts paid for vehicle license, registration, title, transfer, and tire fees. The law also requires that the contract show a subtotal of these and other fees. Under the ASFA, a violation of those disclosures generally makes the contract unenforceable, unless the violation is the result of an accidental or bona fide error in computation. ASFA specifically provides that when the contract is unenforceable, the buyer may elect to retain the vehicle and continue the contract in force or elect to rescind the contract and return the motor vehicle. From a policy standpoint, statutory remedies such as the right of rescission are designed to both encourage compliance with the statute and to provide individuals with the opportunity to enforce the obligations imposed by law. This Bill Would Eliminate The Only Apparent Existing Remedy of Contract Rescission For Violations of Specified Fee and Subtotal Disclosures, Although It Would Allow Recovery Of Any Actual Damages. The requirement that government fees be shown on the contract has been a feature of the ASFA since its enactment 50 years ago. Initially the Act provided no right of rescission if these fees were lumped together on the contract because dealers could defend on the ground of substantial compliance. (Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman, 58 Cal 2d 23 (1962).) However, the Act was subsequently revised to require the current specific itemization. The remedy of rescission therefore appears to be available as a remedy - and apparently the only remedy - specified in the statute for unlawfully aggregating these fees. AB 238 Page 5 Attorney's fees are added for the prevailing party. (Civil Code Section 2983.4.) Although it eliminates the one apparent existing remedy under the ASFA for unlawful aggregation and failure to subtotal, the bill does not actually eliminate the underlying obligation to comply with these disclosure requirements. Failure to comply is still technically wrongful under the bill. Indeed, an uncodified provision of the bill states, "It is not the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to relieve a seller from making full and accurate contract disclosures ?." Moreover, the bill makes clear that actual damages are recoverable for any such violation, although cases involving actual damages are expected to be rare, and may be more difficult to discern if buyers are not shown the breakdown of fees. Any Other Potential Remedies Are Preserved. The bill expressly provides that it does not "affectÝ] any legal rights, claims or remedies otherwise available under law." This is underscored by uncodified language stating, "It is not the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ? limit other consumer remedies for any disclosure violation." It is not clear what if any rights, claims or remedies there might be under existing law. A claim would appear to lie under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). (E.g., Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., 186 Cal. App. 4th 983 (2010).) "By proscribing any unlawful business practice, Ýthe UCL] borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable." (Id., at 1013.)(quotations and citations omitted.) However, the UCL imposes a heightened harm requirement for standing. A private person has standing to sue only if he or she has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. These harm and causation requirements may preclude many potential claims for failure to make the required fee and subtotal disclosures covered by this bill, absent proof of actual damages such as overcharging. While the UCL imposes an elevated damages requirement, it paradoxically limits remedies to injunctive and restitutionary relief, which moreover are discretionary with the court under equitable principles, not mandatory. In addition, attorney's fees are generally unavailable under the UCL, unlike the ASFA. A claim might also lie under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, AB 238 Page 6 although the Committee's research found no reported cases providing authority for such a claim. Despite The Elimination of Remedies, It Is Expected That Car Dealers Will Continue To Comply With All Disclosure Obligations. The premise underlying the bill is that this change in the law will deter excessive litigation and unwarranted remedies without affecting compliance with the ongoing disclosure obligations. It is hoped that the absence of the rescission remedy will not lead to any increase in failure to disclose, which might inadvertently put additional burdens on the Department of Motor Vehicles, which is responsible for administrative monitoring and enforcement of these obligations. What may be worse, if dealers were to combine non-tax-deductible registration and other fees on the same line of the contract with the tax-deductible VLF fee, car buyers may mistakenly overstate VLF tax deductions on their income tax returns - a development that would not only cause potential difficulties for taxpayers but could lead to reduced state revenue collection. It may be useful to evaluate the impact of this measure in subsequent years to ensure that it has the desired positive effect without inadvertent costs. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California New Car Dealers Association Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334