McNiff v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-07-0817 Rel

Case Date: 07/18/2008

Preview:Filed 7/18/08

NO. 4-07-0817 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

COURTNEY McNIFF, ) Appeal from Plaintiff-Appellee and ) Circuit Court of Cross-Appellant, ) McLean County v. ) No. 05L135 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., ) Defendant-Appellant and ) Cross-Appellee. ) and ) Honorable SAM LEMAN MAZDA, ) Charles G. Reynard, Defendant. ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________ JUSTICE TURNER delivered the opinion of the court: In August 2005, plaintiff, Courtney McNiff, brought suit to recover damages against defendants, Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (Mazda), and Sam Leman Mazda, for breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. parties eventually settled. In March 2007, plaintiff filed a In May 2007, The

petition for an award of costs and attorney fees.

the trial court awarded plaintiff's two attorneys a total of $26,015.50 in fees and costs. Defendant Mazda and plaintiff

filed motions to reconsider, both of which the court denied. On appeal, defendant Mazda argues the trial court (1) erred in awarding attorney fees on an hourly basis when plaintiff entered into a contingency-fee agreement with her attorneys and (2) abused its discretion in compensating the attorneys. In her

cross-appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred (1) in

refusing to award attorney fees for her response to the motion for reconsideration and (2) by awarding her attorney a lower rate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with

directions. I. BACKGROUND In May 2004, plaintiff's grandfather purchased a new 2004 Mazda RX-8 from Sam Leman Mazda for the list price of $30,854 and immediately gifted the car to plaintiff. The car

developed mechanical difficulties rendering it unreliable. Plaintiff asked for a refund but received a second engine instead. Thereafter, the vehicle continued to have difficulties. In August 2005, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against defendants, alleging breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the MagnusonMoss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act) (15 U.S.C.

Download McNiff v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc..pdf