You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Small v. Going Forward, Inc.

Citations: 879 A.2d 911; 91 Conn. App. 39; 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 376Docket: AC 26096

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; August 23, 2005; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Appellate Court of Connecticut resolved a legal inquiry concerning the regulation of dealer conveyance fees as per General Statutes § 14-62. The case involved a dispute between a representative of vehicle purchasers and a motor vehicle dealer, focusing on whether the statute limits such fees to reasonable costs incurred during sales transactions. Both parties agreed to have a legal question reserved for determination. The court concluded that while § 14-62 mandates disclosure of dealer conveyance fees in vehicle sales documents, it does not impose a cap on the fee amount, merely requiring transparency about the fee being unrelated to state-imposed charges. The court highlighted the statute’s definition of a dealer conveyance fee as a disclosure clarification tool rather than a regulatory cap. It dismissed the plaintiff's interpretation that the statute limits fees to actual costs, noting that terms like 'reasonable' pertain to disclosure obligations. Ultimately, the court answered the reserved question negatively, affirming that § 14-62 does not regulate the amount charged as a dealer conveyance fee, and no costs were taxed to either party.

Legal Issues Addressed

Court's Role in Reviewing Dealer Fees

Application: The court acknowledged the potential need to examine the nature of fees but maintained that § 14-62 does not inherently limit fee amounts.

Reasoning: A dealer conveyance fee that surpasses the actual costs of closing a sale should not be classified as a dealer conveyance fee but rather disclosed as a different charge.

Definition and Scope of 'Dealer Conveyance Fee'

Application: The court found that the definition of a dealer conveyance fee relates to disclosure requirements and not to limiting the fee amount to reasonable costs.

Reasoning: The statute defines 'dealer conveyance fee' as a charge to recover reasonable costs associated with the sale's closing processes, including registration and ownership transfer.

Disclosure Obligations under General Statutes § 14-62

Application: The statute mandates dealers to provide signed orders and invoices with specific information, including the dealer conveyance fee, which must be disclosed in bold type.

Reasoning: The relevant part of § 14-62 requires that each vehicle sale be documented with a signed order and invoice, disclosing any dealer conveyance fee and stating it is not payable to the state, in bold type.

Interpretation of General Statutes § 14-62

Application: The court determined that § 14-62 requires disclosure of the dealer conveyance fee but does not cap the fee amount based on reasonable costs.

Reasoning: The court concluded that § 14-62 does not regulate the amount of the dealer conveyance fee, but rather sets disclosure requirements.

Role of Statutory Definitions in Legal Interpretation

Application: The court emphasized that statutory definitions are intended to clarify terms for disclosure purposes, not to impose substantive limitations on charges.

Reasoning: The interpretation of statutory terms is guided primarily by their definitions within the same statute.