gno.law

Viramontes v. Desert Auto Plaza CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067237 · 2015-08-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Imperial County · No. ECU08061
Trial judge
Juan Ulloa
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:10Z · confidence high

The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, rescinding a vehicle sales contract under the Automobile Sales Financing Act (ASFA) because the contract failed to disclose that the downpayment was deferred to a later date. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the contract was not in evidence and that no enforceable contract existed.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Judgment for plaintiff based on ASFA violation (failure to disclose deferred downpayment)
“The trial court properly entered judgment for Viramontes because 1) the Contract did not state that the $2,000 cash downpayment had been deferred until April 5 and 2) the Promissory Note, deferring the $2,000 cash downpayment to April 5, was not part of the Contract but a separate document.”
substantial evidencecorrectagree with court
agree with court
Admissibility and existence of the Contract and Promissory Note in evidence
“We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence of the Contract between the parties and the Promissory Note executed as part of the sales transaction, and that both were in fact entered into evidence at trial.”
substantial evidencecorrectagree with court
agree with court
Formation of an enforceable contract (consent and consideration)
“We therefore conclude that an enforceable contract for the sale of a vehicle was formed between Viramontes and Desert Auto Plaza. As such, it was subject to the ASFA and its disclosure requirements.”
de novocorrectagree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: Rojas v. Platinum Auto Grp., Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 997 — ASFA disclosure requirements render a conditional sale contract unenforceable if violated, regardless of consumer harm.
  • relied: Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999 — Standard of review for existence of evidence is substantial evidence; contract formation is de novo.
  • relied: Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 396 — Whether a contract is sufficiently definite to give rise to a legal obligation is a question of law.
  • relied: Valenzuela v. California State Personnel Board (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1179 — Definition of substantial evidence in evaluating legal sufficiency.
  • relied: Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236 — Waiver of right to challenge evidence on appeal by failing to object in trial court.
  • relied: Cushman v. Cushman (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 492 — One must abide by the consequences of their own acts and cannot seek relief for errors they committed or invited.
  • relied: Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 — Questions of law based on undisputed facts may be asserted for the first time on appeal.
  • relied: Huntington Landmark Adult Community Ass'n. v. Ross (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1012 — Contentions on appeal not supported by argument or authority are deemed abandoned.
  • relied: Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 199 — Mutual assent is determined under an objective standard applied to outward manifestations.
  • relied: California Sch. Employees Ass'n. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46 — Definition of consideration as conferring a benefit or suffering a detriment.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the substantial evidence standard to the existence of the contract and the de novo standard to contract formation. It properly relies on the Requests for Admission to establish the evidence and uses objective manifestations of assent to find an enforceable contract subject to ASFA.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The Imperial County Superior Court, after a bench trial, entered judgment for the buyer Viramontes under the Automobile Sales Financing Act because the Retail Installment Sale Contract disclosed a $2,000 cash downpayment made on the signing date when in fact the payment was deferred one day under a separate promissory note, and the court rescinded the contract under Civil Code section 2983. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that substantial evidence (including the dealer's own admissions in response to requests for admission) established the contract and note, that the dealer forfeited any evidentiary objection, and that as a matter of law an enforceable contract subject to the ASFA was formed.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Judgment for buyer under Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (a)(6) for failure to disclose deferral of the cash downpayment, with rescission under section 2983
“The trial court properly entered judgment for Viramontes because 1) the Contract did not state that the $2,000 cash downpayment had been deferred until April 5”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The dealer did not challenge the disclosure finding on appeal, so the court simply confirmed the statutory basis. Under Rojas, an ASFA disclosure violation renders the conditional sale contract unenforceable regardless of consumer harm, and section 2981.9 requires all payment-term agreements, including promissory notes, in a single document; the undisputed facts (contract reciting a same-day cash downpayment, separate note deferring it) fit that rule.
Finding that the Contract and Promissory Note were in evidence and that there was evidence of the Contract between the parties
“We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence of the Contract between the parties and the Promissory Note executed as part of the sales transaction, and that both were in fact entered into evidence at trial.”
substantial evidencecorrectagree with court
The plaintiff's trial brief with the contract and note attached as exhibits to the requests for admission was submitted into evidence without objection, and the dealer admitted the documents were true and correct copies. That is evidence of solid value under Valenzuela, and the dealer's failure to object plus its admissions independently forfeit the challenge under Martinez and the invited-error principle in Cushman.
Determination that an enforceable contract (parties, capacity, consent, consideration under Civil Code section 1550) was formed and thus subject to the ASFA
“We therefore conclude that an enforceable contract for the sale of a vehicle was formed between Viramontes and Desert Auto Plaza. As such, it was subject to the ASFA and its disclosure requirements.”
de novocorrectagree with court
The court properly allowed the new legal argument on undisputed facts under Cedars-Sinai, then applied the objective mutual-assent standard from Bustamante and the benefit/detriment definition of consideration. The dealer prepared and signed the contract, delivered the vehicle, and accepted the downpayment and over $10,000 in installment payments; those outward acts establish assent and consideration, and the capacity argument was unsupported and properly deemed abandoned under Huntington Landmark.

Authorities

  • relied: Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 997 — The ASFA's detailed disclosure requirements render a conditional sale contract unenforceable for any disclosure violation regardless of consumer harm; section 2982(a)(6) requires itemization of any deferred downpayment and section 2981.9 requires all payment-term agreements in a single document.
  • relied: Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999 — Standard of review: existence of a contract reviewed for substantial evidence; whether an enforceable contract was formed on undisputed facts reviewed de novo.
  • relied: Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 396 — Whether a contract is sufficiently definite in its essential terms to give rise to a legal obligation is a question of law.
  • relied: Valenzuela v. California State Personnel Board (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1179 — Substantial evidence review requires resolving conflicts in favor of the judgment and asking whether the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, not a mere scintilla.
  • relied: Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236 — Failure to object to evidence in the trial court forfeits the evidentiary challenge on appeal.
  • relied: Cushman v. Cushman (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 492 — A party must abide by the consequences of his own acts and cannot seek relief on appeal for errors he committed, invited, or induced in the trial court.
  • relied: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 — A pure question of law on undisputed facts may be raised for the first time on appeal.
  • relied: Huntington Landmark Adult Community Assn. v. Ross (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1012 — Contentions on appeal unsupported by argument or citation of authority are deemed without foundation and abandoned.
  • relied: Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 199 — Contract formation requires mutual consent, determined objectively from the parties' outward manifestations rather than unexpressed intentions.
  • relied: California School Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary School Dist. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46 — Consideration is the conferring of a benefit on the promisor or the suffering of a detriment by the promisee.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion identifies the correct standards of review, answers both of the dealer's arguments with apposite authority, and rests on the dealer's own admissions and conduct, which independently support the result through forfeiture and invited error. It also appropriately notes that the dealer never challenged the underlying ASFA disclosure finding, leaving the statutory basis for judgment unassailed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/24/15 Viramontes v. Desert Auto Plaza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR VIRAMONTES, D067237

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. ECU08061) v. DESERT AUTO PLAZA, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa, Judge. Affirmed.

Gonzalez & Garcia and Jorge C. Gonzalez for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Thomas W. Storey and Severson & Werson and John B. Sullivan, Adam H.

Hutchinson, and Mary Kate Kamka for Defendants and Appellants.

Desert Auto Plaza appeals a judgment entered in favor of Oscar Viramontes because the Retail Installment Sale Contract for the sale of a vehicle did not disclose that the downpayment was deferred to a later date in violation of Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (a)(6). We affirm.

1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The record of evidence presented to this court is by way of a settled statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.137. According to the settled statement, Viramontes entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract (the Contract) with Desert Auto Plaza for the sale of a vehicle on April 4, 2013. The Contract indicated that Viramontes made a cash downpayment of $2,000 on the date of signing. Although Viramontes took possession of the vehicle on April 4, 2013, he made the $2,000 downpayment on April 5, 2013.

The record contains a Promissory Note, dated April 4, 2013, in which Viramontes agreed to pay Desert Auto Plaza $2,000 on April 5, 2013.

The court entered judgment for Viramontes against Desert Auto Plaza due to the inaccurate disclosure of the downpayment in the Contract in violation of Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (a)(6). Pursuant to Civil Code section 2983, the court rescinded the contract, cancelled any amounts due thereunder, and ordered Viramontes to surrender the vehicle to Desert Auto Plaza and Desert Auto Plaza to return any money paid pursuant to the Contract to Viramontes. Desert Auto Plaza appeals.

On appeal, Desert Auto Plaza contends that the judgment must be set aside and the matter should be reset for trial, because there is no evidence of the Contract since the Contract itself was never admitted into evidence. Desert Auto Plaza also maintains there is no evidence that Desert Auto Plaza was a party to the Contract, had capacity to enter into the Contract, consented to the Contract, or that there was sufficient consideration.

2 DISCUSSION

The Automobile Sales Financing Act (ASFA) "contains detailed disclosure requirements intended to protect the consuming public and includes provisions that render a conditional sale contract unenforceable if any of those disclosure requirements are violated, regardless of the nature of the disclosure violation or any consumer harm."

(Rojas v. Platinum Auto Grp., Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005; Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.) Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (a)(6)(D), requires a conditional sale contract to itemize a buyer's downpayment and specify if all or a portion of the downpayment is "to be deferred until not later than the due date of the second regularly scheduled installment under the contract . . . ." (Rojas v. Platinum Auto Grp., Inc., supra, at p. 1002.) Civil Code section 2981.9 also requires "all of the agreements of the buyer and seller with respect to the total cost and the terms of payment for the motor vehicle, including any promissory notes or any other evidences of indebtedness" to be contained in "a single document." (Ibid.)

The trial court properly entered judgment for Viramontes because 1) the Contract did not state that the $2,000 cash downpayment had been deferred until April 5 and 2) the Promissory Note, deferring the $2,000 cash downpayment to April 5, was not part of the Contract but a separate document.

On appeal, Desert Auto Plaza does not assert that the court erred in finding that the Contract inaccurately disclosed the terms of the downpayment, but instead appears to be claiming that there is no contract that is subject to the ASFA. Desert Auto Plaza's argument on appeal is two-fold: 1) there is no evidence of the Contract between the 3 parties and 2) there is no evidence that an enforceable contract was formed between the parties.

The issue of whether there is evidence of the existence of the Contract is reviewed for substantial evidence, and the issue of whether an enforceable contract was formed is reviewed de novo. (Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009;

Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 396, 407 ["whether the contract . . . is sufficiently definite and certain in its essential terms to give rise to a legal obligation is a question of law"].)

1. Is There Evidence of the Contract?

Based on our review of the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence of the Contract and the Promissory Note. "In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the following basic approach is required: 'First, one must resolve all explicit conflicts in the evidence in favor of the respondent and presume in favor of the judgment all reasonable inferences. [Citation.] Second, one must determine whether the evidence thus marshaled is substantial. . . . "A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on review. [Citation.] [I]f the word 'substantial' [is to mean]

anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. Obviously the word cannot be deemed synonymous with 'any' evidence. It must be reasonable . . . , credible, and of solid value . . . ." ' " (Valenzuela v. California State Personnel Board (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1184-1185.)

At the beginning of the bench trial in this case, Viramontes requested that his trial brief with the attached exhibits be submitted into evidence. Attached to the trial brief 4 were Exhibit A (Plaintiff's Requests for Admission) and Exhibit B (Defendants' Response to Requests for Admission). Attached to Exhibit A were Exhibit 1, the Contract, and Exhibit 2, the Promissory Note. The court asked defense counsel if he had any objection to the format of the submission, and defense counsel made no objection.

Viramontes's requests for admission asked Desert Auto Plaza, among other things, to admit that Exhibit 1 was a true and correct copy of the Contract and that Exhibit 2 was a true and correct copy of the Promissory Note. In its response, Desert Auto Plaza admitted that these were true and correct copies of the Contract and the Promissory Note.

We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence of the Contract between the parties and the Promissory Note executed as part of the sales transaction, and that both were in fact entered into evidence at trial. Desert Auto Plaza's contentions to the contrary are meritless.

In any event, we further conclude that Desert Auto Plaza waived its right to challenge evidence of the Contract or Promissory Note on appeal by failing to object in the trial court (Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1249)

and admitting that the Contract and Promissory Note entered into evidence were true and correct copies of the Contract and Promissory Note between the parties. (Cushman v. Cushman (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 492, 498 [explaining that "one must abide by the consequences of his own acts and cannot seek relief on appeal for errors he committed or invited or by his conduct induced, in the trial court"].)

5 2. Was An Enforceable Contract Formed?

Desert Auto Plaza contends that there is no evidence that Desert Auto Plaza was a party to the Contract, had capacity to enter into the Contract, consented to the Contract, or that there was sufficient consideration as required by Civil Code section 1550. Civil Code section 1550 states that the essential elements of a contract are parties capable of contracting, their consent, a lawful object, and sufficient consideration. Because the question of whether an enforceable contract was formed between the parties is a question of law and here, based on undisputed facts, it may be asserted for the first time on appeal.

(Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 6.)

As a preliminary matter, we note that there is no question that Desert Auto Plaza was a party to the Contract or the Promissory Note. The Contract names Desert Auto Plaza as the creditor. The Promissory Note sets forth Viramontes' promise to pay Desert Auto Plaza $2,000 on April 5, 2013. Desert Auto Plaza admitted in its response to requests for admission that it prepared and signed the Contract and that it required Viramontes to sign the Promissory Note as a condition of sale of the vehicle.

It is also undisputed that the Contract concerned a lawful object, a vehicle, and no argument has been made nor evidence introduced that would indicate Desert Auto Plaza was incapable of entering into the Contract. (Huntington Landmark Adult Community Ass'n. v. Ross (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1021 [explaining that contentions on appeal that are not supported by argument or citation of authority are "deemed to be without foundation and to have been abandoned"].) Thus, we focus on whether there was consent and consideration.

6 "Contract formation requires mutual consent, which cannot exist unless the parties 'agree upon the same thing in the same sense.' [Citation.] 'If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to the 'same thing' by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.' [Citation.] 'Mutual assent is determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations or expressions of the parties, i.e., the reasonable meaning of their words and acts, and not their unexpressed intentions or understandings.' " (Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 199, 208.) "Consideration is simply the conferring of a benefit upon the promisor or some other person or the suffering of a detriment by the promisee or some other person." (California Sch. Employees Ass'n. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist.

(1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46, 59.)

The parties entered into a simple agreement for the sale of a vehicle, the terms of which were memorialized in the Contract and the Promissory Note. The terms of the agreement were specific and definite and required Viramontes to agree to the terms of financing and pay a downpayment in exchange for possession and use of the vehicle.

The evidence reveals mutual consent to the terms of the Contract and the Promissory Note because the parties complied with the terms of these documents. Desert Auto Plaza gave Viramontes possession of the vehicle on April 4 and in exchange Viramontes agreed to the terms of financing and to make a downpayment on April 5. In accord with the Promissory Note, Viramontes made a $2,000 cash downpayment on April 5. Pursuant to the Contract, Viramontes then made monthly payments, which totaled $10,403.38 as of November 12, 2014. The parties thus abided by the terms of their 7 agreement and satisfied their promises to each other, evidencing mutual consent. Since each party conferred a benefit on the other and suffered a detriment, there was also consideration. We therefore conclude that an enforceable contract for the sale of a vehicle was formed between Viramontes and Desert Auto Plaza. As such, it was subject to the ASFA and its disclosure requirements.

DISPOSITION

Judgment affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus