COX v. SLACK (2024)

Claimant Madison Cox filed this small claim on April 29, 2024, seeking $3,700 to recoup her car payments and repairs on an oral purchase agreement with the title owner Defendant Denise Slack. Ms. Slack counterclaimed on June 6, 2024, seeking reimbursement for various repairs made to the vehicle after she regained possession from Ms. Cox. On consent of the parties, both issues proceeded to trial on June 6, 2024.

The court's duty in a small claims case is to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law (UCCA § 1804). The parties in this case made and their actions executed an oral contract that deviated from the common law in several respects. The arrangement that seemed good between friends at the time, soon turned into a morass of unforeseen expenses, stressed finances, and severed relationships. Ms. Cox never obtained a title transfer of the vehicle. Ms. Slack continued to pay the registration, insurance and partially reimbursed EZ-pass fees. The parties by their actions were content to keep this informal arrangement so long as it was mutually beneficial. Essentially, Ms. Cox kept the vehicle so long as she made the payments. When the payments stopped and the vehicle's maintenance became too expensive, Ms. Cox returned the vehicle to Ms. Slack.

Any payments by Ms. Cox on the oral contract are best construed as payments for the fair use of the vehicle. Although it would normally not make sense in common law or common sense for the non-title owner to pay for structural repairs, Ms. Cox did not submit documentary proof of those repair payments. However, even if she did, the repairs for wheel bearings, brakes, struts, and leaks in the coolant hose seem to fall more in the category of routine maintenance rather than major structural repairs. Ms. Slack submitted evidence that she had make EZ-pass payments, repairs to the bumper due to Ms. Cox's negligence, and other expenses. On the other hand, there was conflicting testimony that the damage to the bumper was preventable if Ms. Slack had done more routine maintenance before Ms. Cox took possession. Also, the repairs paid for by Ms. Cox saved Ms. Slack some money on the next inspection because these repairs would need to have been done anyways.

Rather than getting into a complex analysis of who is responsible for what payments and how they should be offset by what other payments and/or repairs, the Court finds that substantial justice is accomplished by leaving the parties where they stand. As such, the Court finds that the claims and counter-claims are equally offset by the other.

It is hereby ordered that the claim as well as the counterclaim are dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Joshua P. Bannister, J.