What responsibility do they share with [this] the dealer?
I can understand they wouldn't be liable (possibly) in your situation, but this dealership appears to have been criminally negligent, and with the GM/Chevrolet logo on their door. Is the logo all they share? He did correct you when you asked him to deny they don't share. He didn't seem to elaborate, correct?

 

What about on a federal level, can he go after them?
Does it appear they're avoiding legal problems by "changing ownership" every 6 months?

 

As to the dealership and the multiple "owners" of it there might be a way to connect the dots - might MIGHT even be a way to get to the individual owners of the dealership (assuming its a franchise) in the case of fraud. But even if it is a wholly owned subsidiary of GM, Which I highly doubt - holding GM liable for the fraudulent or criminal conduct of a corporate subsidiary would be nearly impossible unless GM knowingly participated in or assisted the fraud/crime - which I highly doubt even more. Stop worrying about GM - I can't see how you get to them unless you've just stumbled across one of the greatest scams in corporate american history.

As to the dealership and it's prior owners - yes, chase them down.

One last word - if you were my client I'd be screaming at you for asking the opinon of a bunch of people on a forum when YOUR lawyer is the one (any ONLY one) who's opinion and advise you should be listening to - not me and not anyone else on here. This is a great sounding board and I love the forum - but listen to your guy/gal - if you don't agree with them or don't like what they say - find another. But eventually - yoyu have to trust your lawyer and listen to their advise and only thier advise. I've "fired" more than one client who started a conversation with " . . well I was discussing my case with my brother-in-law (who's not a lawyer) and he said you should be doing . . . " end of discussion - hire your brother-in-law.

Ask these questions of your lawyer - thats why you hired them.

Gotta run to the jail now and talk to a client who didn't follow my advise.

Good luck and keep us posted

 

My son is a lawyer...he said 'get a lawyer'!

 

I know... you're absolutely right. Though I do want complete knowledge of the possibilities. I suppose my fear comes from the premise that the "owners" ability to pay has ME wanting to know all possible avenues. After all... Law is in place for the PEOPLE' benefit, not the lawyers. Nobility, in all that is generated as a result of, can be a double edged sword!

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand the last sentence, but I agree that you certainly should learn as much as possible. My point (though not at all stated clearly - sorry) is that the laws of corporate liability are very complex and often times very fact specific. Consequently, the best person to advise you based on your specific facts would the lawyer you hired.

Like I said - the forum is a great place and I've gotten a TON of great info here. Everyone will have an opinion about "what right" and "whats fair" - but as they told us the first day of law school - its "Law" school, not "Fair" school, and whether we like it or not, the law is not always fair. And for that, you can't blame the lawyers - talk to your congressman.

I really do hope that everything works out well in your case - sounds like you got schwantzed in a big way. (high powered legal lingo there! )

 

I had a similiar problem. I'll tell you how I got the dealer to do better than the right thing...

Bought a very new used Volvo. Thing kept blowing out the computer. After 5 of them, I had enough, asked the dealer to take the car back. They wouldn't. Communications deteriorated. I came up with an idea. I made a 2'x3' cardboard sign with big letters that said "Dealer won't stand behind their product." and stood infront of their shop on the next Saturday morning. I took care I wasn't on their property and within 25 feet of the centerline of the road in front of the dealership. A few cars honked as they went by. Bottom line, I stood there for about 7 minutes until one of the management team came out and invited me in to reopen a dialogue. Not only did take back my lemon, but the allowed a $500 inhouse gift certificate. They made good, I was happy. I went back four years later to buy my kid a car, and got the red carpet treatment. It may work for you. ...-C4-

 

Hmmmmm...a lawyer says "Get a lawyer."
Hmmmmmmm....

(sorry. had too many experiences with incompetent, greedy, and flat dishonest lawyers...)

Larry
code5coupe

 

Yes indeed... the more I've studied law over the years, the more I have realized that the law gives little heed to equity and actually, quite the opposite at many an occasion. Though an event such as this has dictated that I hire one of 'nobility' (abandoned label defining a Attorney) to provide me a service. . . and I pity the fool that removes him or herself from participation in decisions that effect his or her life.
Attorneys will ALWAYS argue that their clients participation may jeopardize the end result or effect an outcome but, ignorance only penalizes the client, not the attorney, though such does not negate obtaining a solution. However, it is not the Lawyer that is the "Bad apple," it is the laws' application & manipulation that bears the label of rotten fruit.

I try to control as many aspects of my life as I can, including legal ones EVEN when I need the assistance of counsel in matters such as this. Decisions of such are mine, not my counsels even though counsels research and legal knowledge are utilized will generally control the direction of course, it will not be done so, blindly. After all... my counsel is working for. . . ME!

At any event, I will be giving my attorney an update on the situation and see what she thinks the best course of action is to take. Thanks guys for your help in this matter, I willl keep you informed as the info materializes.

 

Sadly, there are indeed too many of those - and it gives the rest of us a bad name.

 

Hey, I've worked with too many lawyers already in the last few months. Their job is to seek money, not truth. Seriously, isn't this the case?

 

I would assume that when someone buys a business, they assume all the liabilities that go along with it. If you had entered into a lawsuit prior to the ownership change, I could see how you can have a case.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but ownership hasn't changed since you took your car back. Right?

I'd enter a lawsuit ASAP in case they change owners again. They can't sell the place without telling the buyers about a lawsuit.

I am not a lawyer, so the question I'd ask is wether a lawsuit survives a purchase? If so, against who, the new owner or the previous owner? But the case certinally can't go away.

IN NJ we the superior court handles amounts up to $10,000. Small claimes I believe is $5000. It can't hurt to just file a case. And subpenoa them.

Let them explain to a judge. Why not?

 

It's the other 99% that give lawyers a bad name.

 

The problem is that you'll spend more with the lawyer than the case is worth. Especially with amounts under $20,000.

 

Apparently I need to learn to just keep my mouth shut here. I'm gonna stay outta this one now.

 

Not always, in John Edwards case, yes, it was all about the money. Eveidence has deomstarted it certinally wasn't science. However, this case isn't, and most lawyers aren't.

My friends who are lawyers typically do thee things:

1. Protect their client from going to jail, advise on actions to take baseed on the law.
2. Make sure their client is protecteted long term, after the deal is done.
3. Redress when their clients get screwed.

Now, in some cases that means suing or not. In fact, they consider the initiation of a lawsuit a failure to do the first two in many cases. It is a means of last resort and only to re-coup based on the the previous two.

As in this case. They had an agreement ot fix the car, the car wasn't fixed, it's worse off than before it got there. So, under the pretence of the first two, the party to the contract has to move to step three. If one and two were dealt with by the terms of the original agreement three wouldn't be neccessary.

So, why are lawsuits so disproportional to the damages. Let's say it takes 10K to get this car back into the condition it was bought in as. You have to sue for 25k to cover all the costs of going to court.

Heck, I just had to go to court with my builder on a 12K case, and it just wasn't worth getting a lawyer. My FRIENDS told me to pay them is a waste of time, I'd spend more on other stuff and wind up with little or nothing. Subpeonas, FedEx, etc.... Would have eaten away sinificantly of any reward I may have received. So I went it alone and won, with their advice.

Now, is a good lawyer worth $300-500 an hour. Well, that's a discussion for another day. However, consider this. Is it worth $500 to stay out of jail?

 

Waste of time

 

Yes, obviously my experience with them at work is much different than this, since generally, we're involved in larger lawsuits up to $5M or so.

What I've seen though, is that the first purpose of a lawyer, is to fight for a settlement. When you are in the right, have your facts laid out, and a lawyer doing the talking, the other party would rather settle out of court than pay more to hire a lawyer to fight a losing battle.

And yes, it is expensive to prepare for trial. Today we just paid nearly $4000 to a graphics company to blow up 6 photos and put em on postersize foam board. The bastards have special rates for anything that's to be used in a lawsuit, even photocopies (but we do those ourselves of course.)

 

If none of the above tactics work, a HE round fired from a M79 Grenade launcher into the showroom late one night, might save any future victims from going thru your ordeal