Capitol Chrysler-Plymouth v. Megginson (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 26734 - Capitol Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Sharon D. Megginson FILED Starcher, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: July 20, 2000 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA RELEASED July 21, 2000 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I concur with the majority s conclusion that the jury had the right to reject the car dealer s fraud claim against the defendant. We must also apply this test to the jury s verdict for the defendant on the defendant s counter-claim, but the majority has failed to do so. Specifically, we must assume that the jury believed that the car dealer deliberately scammed the defendant into a car purchase with phony financing promises. We must also assume that the jury entirely disbelieved the car dealer s innocent version of events. Based on such findings, the jury could have found that the car dealer s improper conduct caused the defendant s original car to be repossessed, at a time that there was $16,000 owing on it -leaving the plaintiff to owe over $7,000 on it after repossession and resale. To be deliberately scammed by a car dealer under these circumstances is worth $15,000. This jury verdict should stand. Accordingly, I dissent in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
