Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
122 Nev. 15, 125 P.3d 1160
Arthur R. WADDELL and Roswitha M. Waddell, Appellants,
v.
L.V.R.V. INC., D/B/A Wheeler's Las Vegas Rv, Respondent.
L.V.R.V. INC., D/B/A Wheeler's Las Vegas Rv, Appellant,
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court judgment allowing revocation of acceptance of a contract and an order
awarding attorney fees and costs. Respondent/cross-appellant L.V.R.V. Inc., D/B/A Wheeler's Las Vegas RV (Wheeler's)
sold a 1996 Coachmen Santara motor home (the RV) to appellants/cross-respondents Arthur R. Waddell and Roswitha M.
Waddell (the Waddells). The Waddells noticed numerous problems with the RV and “continually” had to return it to
Wheeler's service department for repairs. Eventually, the Waddells stopped attempting to have Wheeler's make repairs and
Waddells argue on cross-appeal that the district court erred in denying them (1) computerized research costs and (2) post-
judgment interest on their attorney fees award.
FACTS
In 1996, the Waddells served jointly as president of the Las Vegas area Coachmen Association Camping Club. During the
course of that group's meetings, the Waddells spoke with Tom Pender, Wheeler's sales manager, about upgrading from the
The Waddells first noticed a problem with the RV's engine shortly after they took possession of it. They drove the RV from
Las Vegas to Hemet, California. On the return trip, the entry door popped open and the RV's engine overheated while
ascending a moderate grade to such a degree that Mr. Waddell had to pull over to the side of the road and wait for the engine
to cool down.
When the Waddells returned from California, they took the RV back to Wheeler's for repairs. Despite Wheeler's attempts to
Following a three-day bench trial, the district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. The district
court concluded that the RV's nonconformities substantially impaired its value to the Waddells. The district court allowed
the Waddells to revoke their acceptance of the RV and ordered Wheeler's to return all of the Waddell's out-of-pocket
expenses, but further concluded that Wheeler's was not entitled to indemnification from Coachmen. Following entry of
judgment, the district court awarded the Waddells $15,000 in attorney fees, entered supplemental findings of fact and
conclusions of law, issued an amended judgment, entered a separate order denying post-judgment interest on the attorney fee
award, and denied the Waddells' motion to retax their costs to include computerized research fees. This timely appeal and
cross-appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The district court found that despite Wheeler's good-faith attempts to repair the RV, the nonconformities persisted and
rendered the RV unfit for its intended use. Some of those nonconformities identified by the district court included: the
bedroom air conditioning does not cool, the front air conditioning does not cool, the dash heater does not blow hot air, RV
batteries do not stay charged, and chronic engine overheating. The district court concluded that these nonconformities and
others substantially impaired the RV's value to the Waddells and *1163 that the Waddells had revoked their acceptance of the
We have never before determined when a nonconformity substantially impairs the value of a good to the buyer. Other
jurisdictions treat this determination as an issue of fact, which “is made in light of the ‘totality of the circumstances' of each
particular case, including the number of deficiencies and type of nonconformity and the time and inconvenience spent in
downtime and attempts at repair.”
See, e.g., ; ; .
sense that it calls for a consideration of the needs and circumstances of the plaintiff who seeks to revoke; not the needs and
circumstances of an average buyer. The second inquiry is whether the nonconformity in fact substantially impairs the value
of the goods to the buyer, having in mind his particular needs. This is an objective question in the sense that it calls for
evidence of something more than plaintiff's assertion that the nonconformity impaired the value to him; it requires evidence
from which it can be inferred that plaintiff's needs were not met because of the nonconformity.
Arthur Waddell testified that he purchased the RV to enjoy the RV lifestyle. Before purchasing the RV, the Waddells owned
similar vehicles that they used both as a residence and for camping trips. In fact, Mr. Waddell testified that he and his wife
intended to sell their house and spend two to three years traveling around the country.
Mr. Waddell further testified that he shopped at Wheeler's based on Wheeler's advertisements. Marlene Wheeler, president
and chief operating officer, testified that Wheeler's advertising encouraged the purchase of an RV to find unlimited freedom.
Objective impairment
Mr. Waddell testified that as a result of the RV's defects, he and his wife were unable to enjoy the RV as they had intended.
Mr. Waddell further testified that the RV's engine would overheat within ten miles of embarking if the travel included any
climbing. As a result of the overheating, the Waddells were forced to park on the side of the road and wait for the engine to
cool down before continuing. Consequently, the RV spent a total of 213 days, or seven months and one day, at Wheeler's
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently reiterated that “ ‘the [seller's] inability to correct defects
in [motor] vehicles creates a major hardship and an unacceptable economic burden on the consumer.” ’
see also .
.
(quoting ).
Wheeler's argues that the Waddells should not have been allowed to revoke their acceptance because they did not attempt to
revoke within a reasonable time after purchasing the RV. We disagree.
Under , “[r]evocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered
the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects.” The
statute further provides that revocation “is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.” We have never before
See, e.g., ; ; ; .
*1165 Here, the district court found that the Waddells were entitled to revoke their acceptance since they notified Wheeler's
of their intent to revoke within a reasonable time. Mr. Waddell testified that he first noticed the RV's defects immediately
after his purchase. Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's service department whenever he noticed a defect and Wheeler's
always attempted, often unsuccessfully, to repair the RV. In September 1998, Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's after
these inquiries until early 2000. Unable to resolve the dispute with Wheeler's, the Waddells revoked their acceptance of the
RV in June 2000.
The seller of nonconforming goods must generally receive an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the buyer may
revoke his acceptance. However, as the Supreme Court of Mississippi has recognized, the seller may not “postpone
revocation in perpetuity by fixing everything that goes wrong.” Rather, “[t]here comes a time when ... [the buyer] is entitled
attempts repairs.” Tolling the reasonable time for revocation of acceptance is appropriate given “the buyer's obligation to act
in good faith, and to afford the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure any defect in the goods.”
.
Id.
The Waddells gave Wheeler's several opportunities to repair the defects before revoking their acceptance. Because
.
Wheeler's motion for attorney fees
Wheeler's argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for attorney fees because the Waddells recovered only on
equitable grounds and failed to obtain a money judgment in excess of the $25,000 offer of judgment that Wheeler's proffered
before trial. We disagree.
consideration of the appeal.
The district court must consider four factors in awarding penalties pursuant to . The third factor, which is most relevant to
this case, requires a consideration of “whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly
unreasonable or in bad faith.”
.
required to keep and make payments on the RV, which they could not use for the purposes they intended when they bought it.
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Wheeler's motion for attorney fees.
This figure represents:
1. The sum of $78,857.22 which constitutes 78 payments made by the [Waddells] from the date of the purchase
through April 1, 2004 ...
f. $2,995.00 which constitutes the extended service contract; [and]
3. $20.00 which constitutes the title fee ....
Indemnification
Wheeler's argues that the district court erred in denying its claim for indemnification from Coachmen for its liability to the
Waddells. We disagree.
correct that problem. There is no evidence in the record demonstrating irreparable design or manufacturing defects.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
We have considered Wheeler's other assignments of error and find them without merit.
Computerized legal research costs
On cross-appeal, the Waddells argue that the district court abused its discretion by denying them computerized research costs.
.
(quoting ).
Post-judgment interest on attorney fees
The Waddells argue that they were entitled to post-judgment interest on their attorney fees award. We agree.
provides for interest to be granted on “all judgments and decrees, rendered by any court of justice, for any debt, damages or
attorney fees as a general rule.” That court adopted the “modern trend” because “an award of post-judgment interest on
attorney fees properly recognize[s] the time value of money by making the prevailing party truly whole and preventing the
nonprevailing party from enjoying the use of money that no longer rightfully belongs to it.”
See, e.g., ; ; ; ; .
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in allowing the Waddells to revoke their acceptance of the RV within a reasonable time because
chronic engine overheating problems substantially impaired the RV's value to the Waddells. The district court also properly
The district court found that despite Wheeler's good-faith attempts to repair the RV, the nonconformities persisted and
rendered the RV unfit for its intended use. Some of those nonconformities identified by the district court included: the
bedroom air conditioning does not cool, the front air conditioning does not cool, the dash heater does not blow hot air, RV
batteries do not stay charged, and chronic engine overheating. The district court concluded that these nonconformities and
others substantially impaired the RV's value to the Waddells and *1163 that the Waddells had revoked their acceptance of the
We have never before determined when a nonconformity substantially impairs the value of a good to the buyer. Other
jurisdictions treat this determination as an issue of fact, which “is made in light of the ‘totality of the circumstances' of each
particular case, including the number of deficiencies and type of nonconformity and the time and inconvenience spent in
downtime and attempts at repair.”
See, e.g., ; ; .
sense that it calls for a consideration of the needs and circumstances of the plaintiff who seeks to revoke; not the needs and
circumstances of an average buyer. The second inquiry is whether the nonconformity in fact substantially impairs the value
of the goods to the buyer, having in mind his particular needs. This is an objective question in the sense that it calls for
evidence of something more than plaintiff's assertion that the nonconformity impaired the value to him; it requires evidence
from which it can be inferred that plaintiff's needs were not met because of the nonconformity.
Arthur Waddell testified that he purchased the RV to enjoy the RV lifestyle. Before purchasing the RV, the Waddells owned
similar vehicles that they used both as a residence and for camping trips. In fact, Mr. Waddell testified that he and his wife
intended to sell their house and spend two to three years traveling around the country.
Mr. Waddell further testified that he shopped at Wheeler's based on Wheeler's advertisements. Marlene Wheeler, president
and chief operating officer, testified that Wheeler's advertising encouraged the purchase of an RV to find unlimited freedom.
Objective impairment
Mr. Waddell testified that as a result of the RV's defects, he and his wife were unable to enjoy the RV as they had intended.
Mr. Waddell further testified that the RV's engine would overheat within ten miles of embarking if the travel included any
climbing. As a result of the overheating, the Waddells were forced to park on the side of the road and wait for the engine to
cool down before continuing. Consequently, the RV spent a total of 213 days, or seven months and one day, at Wheeler's
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently reiterated that “ ‘the [seller's] inability to correct defects
in [motor] vehicles creates a major hardship and an unacceptable economic burden on the consumer.” ’
see also .
.
(quoting ).
Wheeler's argues that the Waddells should not have been allowed to revoke their acceptance because they did not attempt to
revoke within a reasonable time after purchasing the RV. We disagree.
Under , “[r]evocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered
the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects.” The
statute further provides that revocation “is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.” We have never before
See, e.g., ; ; ; .
*1165 Here, the district court found that the Waddells were entitled to revoke their acceptance since they notified Wheeler's
of their intent to revoke within a reasonable time. Mr. Waddell testified that he first noticed the RV's defects immediately
after his purchase. Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's service department whenever he noticed a defect and Wheeler's
always attempted, often unsuccessfully, to repair the RV. In September 1998, Mr. Waddell took the RV to Wheeler's after
these inquiries until early 2000. Unable to resolve the dispute with Wheeler's, the Waddells revoked their acceptance of the
RV in June 2000.
The seller of nonconforming goods must generally receive an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the buyer may
revoke his acceptance. However, as the Supreme Court of Mississippi has recognized, the seller may not “postpone
revocation in perpetuity by fixing everything that goes wrong.” Rather, “[t]here comes a time when ... [the buyer] is entitled
attempts repairs.” Tolling the reasonable time for revocation of acceptance is appropriate given “the buyer's obligation to act
in good faith, and to afford the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure any defect in the goods.”
.
Id.
The Waddells gave Wheeler's several opportunities to repair the defects before revoking their acceptance. Because
.
Wheeler's motion for attorney fees
Wheeler's argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for attorney fees because the Waddells recovered only on
equitable grounds and failed to obtain a money judgment in excess of the $25,000 offer of judgment that Wheeler's proffered
before trial. We disagree.
consideration of the appeal.
The district court must consider four factors in awarding penalties pursuant to . The third factor, which is most relevant to
this case, requires a consideration of “whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly
unreasonable or in bad faith.”
.
required to keep and make payments on the RV, which they could not use for the purposes they intended when they bought it.
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Wheeler's motion for attorney fees.
This figure represents:
1. The sum of $78,857.22 which constitutes 78 payments made by the [Waddells] from the date of the purchase
through April 1, 2004 ...
f. $2,995.00 which constitutes the extended service contract; [and]
3. $20.00 which constitutes the title fee ....
Indemnification
Wheeler's argues that the district court erred in denying its claim for indemnification from Coachmen for its liability to the
Waddells. We disagree.
correct that problem. There is no evidence in the record demonstrating irreparable design or manufacturing defects.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
We have considered Wheeler's other assignments of error and find them without merit.
Computerized legal research costs
On cross-appeal, the Waddells argue that the district court abused its discretion by denying them computerized research costs.
.
(quoting ).
Post-judgment interest on attorney fees
The Waddells argue that they were entitled to post-judgment interest on their attorney fees award. We agree.
provides for interest to be granted on “all judgments and decrees, rendered by any court of justice, for any debt, damages or
attorney fees as a general rule.” That court adopted the “modern trend” because “an award of post-judgment interest on
attorney fees properly recognize[s] the time value of money by making the prevailing party truly whole and preventing the
nonprevailing party from enjoying the use of money that no longer rightfully belongs to it.”
See, e.g., ; ; ; ; .
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in allowing the Waddells to revoke their acceptance of the RV within a reasonable time because
chronic engine overheating problems substantially impaired the RV's value to the Waddells. The district court also properly
