Preview:

Wendy J. Simpkin s v. Ford M otor Cred it Comp any, et. al. No. 2, September Term, 2005 CIVIL PROCED URE - MD . RULE 8-131(a) - The issue of Petitioner's involvem ent in a class action suit in Califo rnia and its res judicata effect, if any, on the insta nt case w as not subs tantively considered by the trial court. Generally, we may only review issues raised in, or decided by, the trial court, as such, this C ourt is not in position to definitively rule on those issues in the instant case and in respondents' motions to dismiss. CIVIL PROCEDU RE - MD. RULE 8-604 - REMAND - Because the merits of the instant case cannot be determined on the record before us, the matter must be remanded, providing the parties with an opportunity to engage in additional proceedings at the trial court as the purposes of justice may requ ire. APPELLATE PROCEDURE - QUESTIONS O F LAW - Affirmance of the trial court's decision in the instant appeal was inappropriate because the issue of res judicata had become ripe subsequent to the trial court's final judgment and should have been resolved prior to the resolution of the other statutory iss ues tha t were r aised.

In the Circu it Court for P rince Geo rge's Cou nty Civil No. CAL01-03232

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2 September Term, 2005 ______________________________________ WENDY J. SIMPKINS

v.

FORD MOT OR C RED IT CO MPA NY, et al. ____________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Greene, J. ______________________________________ Filed: November 15, 2005

This matter originated with the filing of a class action complaint1 in connec tion with the legality of late fees charged to a lessee pursuant to an automobile lease. In 1996, Wendy Simpkins leased an automobile from Primus Automotive Financia l Servic es, Inc., a subsidiary of Ford Motor Credit Company ("FMC"). The leasing contract established a monthly payment an d a late charge of 7.5% of the full amount of the scheduled payment or $50.00, whichever is less, for each payment not received within 10 days after its due date. Ms. Simpkin s paid at least o ne late charge in accordance with two leases with FMC , one in 1996 and anoth er in 1999 . Since the filin g of the initial c omplaint, the parties an d claims in the instant case have gone through several incarnations.2 The dismissal of the Second Ame nded C ompla int is the o rigin of this app eal. In the Second Amended Complaint, Ms. Simpkins alleges that any late payment fee

Ms. Simpkins filed her Motion for Class Certification on September 9, 2002. The record does n ot indica te that this initial mo tion wa s ruled u pon. Ms. Simpkins filed an additional Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support of that motion on December 20, 200 2. FM C filed an opp osition to Ms. S impkins's Motion for Class Certification . The only indication of the Circuit Court's decision on this motion lies in the docket entries for January 17, 2003. The docket entries note: "Plaintiff Motion for Class Certification Reserved." The instant case was later dismissed, as noted infra, and the Motion for Class Certification was never considered. In the event the instant case proceeds on the merits on remand, the Circuit Court will have to determine whether the matter can be mainta ined as a class a ction. M d. Rule 2-231 (c). The instant case began with the filing of a Class Action Complaint against Mazda American Credit Corporation t/a Mazda American Credit by Wendy Simp kins and Lynford Martin in the Circu it Court for P rince Geo rge's Cou nty. Mr. Ma rtin was vo luntarily dismissed from the suit on February 4, 2003, and is not a party to this appeal. That Complaint was subsequently amended to add FMC Company t/a Mazda American Credit and Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc. (both responde nts shall be ref erred to collectively as "Ford Motor C redit" or "FMC ").
2

1

charged by FMC in excess of 6% per annum to its Maryland lease finance customers is an unlawful penalty under the Maryland Constitution and the common law.3 Ms. Simpkins asked the trial court to f orce FM C to refun d all excessive late fees collected, plus prejudgment interest, to her and the members of the putative class. Ms. Simpkins also requested a declaratory judgment holding that the Maryland Consumer Motor V ehicle Leasing Contra cts Act , Md. C ode (19 75, 2000 Repl. Vol.),

Download Simpkins v. Ford Motor.pdf

Maryland Law