Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Mangold v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Mangold v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Case Date: 04/30/2004
Court: 3rd District Appellate
Docket No: 3-02-0796 Rel

No. 3--02--0796

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2004

CHRISTOPHER MANGOLD and
ERYNN MANGOLD,

          Plaintiffs-Appellees,

          v.

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

                      Defendant-Appellant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit
Court of the 12th
Judicial Circuit,
Will County, Illinois

No. 01--LM--2572


Honorable Paula Gomora,
Judge Presiding

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the Opinion of the Court:

Plaintiffs, Christopher and Erynn Mangold, brought suit againstNissan North America (Nissan) pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss WarrantyAct (15 U.S.C. section 2301 et seq.) (Act). The complaint alleged thatNissan failed to uphold provisions of its warranties on a vehiclepurchased by a financial services company and leased to plaintiffs.Nissan filed a motion to dismiss, contending that leases do not fallunder the protection of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The circuitcourt of Will County denied Nissan's motion. The court then grantedNissan's petition for interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule308. We are asked to determine whether automobile lessees may enforcewarranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. We answer thecertified question in the affirmative and remand.

Plaintiffs leased a new 2001 Infiniti I30 at Infiniti of OrlandPark. The dealer sold the vehicle to Debis Financial Services, Inc.,which leased it to plaintiffs. Nissan supplied a written warranty thatcovered the vehicle against factory defects for four years or 60,000miles. The warranty was issued to Debis; as part of the leasetransaction, Debis assigned its rights under the written warranty toplaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that without the rights under thewritten warranty, they would not have entered into the lease.

Almost immediately after plaintiffs leased the car, they began tonotice excessive wind noise and brought the vehicle back to thedealership. As a result, repairs were performed; the repair work wascovered by the manufacturer's written warranty. After severalunsuccessful attempts to repair the wind noise, plaintiffs filed acomplaint against Nissan in Cook County. They alleged that Nissanbreached its written warranty and an implied warranty ofmerchantability, and thus they were entitled to revoke their acceptanceof the car. All counts were pled under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The matter was transferred to Will County on forum non-conveniensgrounds.

Nissan filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Act providesprotection only when an alleged breach of warranty occurs in connectionwith the sale of a consumer product and does not apply to leases. Thetrial court denied the motion and Nissan appealed pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 308. The court certified the following question to us:"whether a lessee of an automobile may maintain a cause of action forbreach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act."I.

Defendants argue that the Act requires that a "sale" be made toa "consumer," and as lessees, plaintiffs are neither purchasers norconsumers.

The Act permits "a consumer who is damaged by the failure of asupplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with anyobligation under this chapter, or under a written warranty, impliedwarranty, or service contract" to sue the warrantor for damages; electrepair, replacement, or refund of defective parts; and collect attorneyfees. 15 U.S.C.