[Judge Acker] She bought the car.
It was revealed that the odometer had been rolled back.
I mean...
Did you lie about that?
I had no idea about any of that.
Oh, my God.
The two of you have no idea how it happened.
You were dealing with two shady business people.
[announcer] Now on Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Saratoga Springs, Utah.
[Byrd] Judge, this is case number 2041 on the calender
in the matter of Johnson versus Miller, Levin.
- Thank you, Byrd. - You're welcome, Judge.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
Okay. Ms. Johnson, you purchased
a 2007 Chevy Suburban from the defendants.
Mr. Miller, you are a small car dealership
and, Mr. Levin, you are a mechanic and you're both partners in this business.
Ms. Johnson, you bought the car.
You say that it broke down within a very short time.
You brought it to his recommended mechanic for repair
and he made things worse,
and, ultimately, you discovered that this vehicle had a rolled-back odometer.
You paid $12,000 for it.
Court maximum is 10,000 and that's what you're asking us to award you.
- Correct. - [Judge DiMango] Mr. Miller, you say,
"I sold the car as is."
And Mr. Levin, you said, "I checked this car out ahead of time
and it was in good working condition.
We don't owe her anything and we don't even know
how to roll back an odometer."
- That's right. - Correct.
So let's see the picture of the vehicle.
You paid $12,000 for it.
[Cari] Yes.
[Judge DiMango] You advertised this vehicle for sale,
so let's see part of the advertisement it looks like.
It says, "We will have this low mileage,
2007 5.3 V8 loaded Suburban for sale soon."
You go on further to say, "108,795 miles,
has had one owner, no liens," correct?
Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge DiMango] So you see this ad.
And what do you do?
We had been saving.
We had a Suburban but it had high mileage.
And we had bought that from my parents.
It's a 2001.
And I had been looking at ads all the time and this popped up.
- I texted Tommy... - Time now.
You went to see the vehicle.
You met him up June 28th of 2021, correct?
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] So that's two years ago.
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] All right. Go on.
[Cari] We met up with him and my husband test drove it.
And he said he had other people that were interested in it
and they were going to the bank.
We had the cash.
And he showed me the text of all the people interested...
- Ah, the old sales pitch. - [Cari] Yes. Yes.
"Everybody wants this car,
- so you better get it now..." - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] "... while it's still available for you."
Why don't you step up? Are you, Mr. Johnson?
- Uh, yes. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
Were the defendants both there at the time you test-drove the car?
It was just Tommy.
[Judge DiMango] Just Tommy Miller? What did he say?
He said, "Go ahead and drive it, see how it works for you.
If you like it, then you'll have to hurry and buy it.
If not, I have somebody at the bank right now
- trying to get a loan." - [Judge DiMango] I see.
You're a used car salesman, right?
I mean, that's why there's a reputation there.
Yeah, people don't like me already.
No. Do you have another name for that, by the way, Judge Levy?
Another name for used car salesman?
- No. - [laughter]
- Lawyer. - [laughter]
[Judge DiMango] So, anyway, you give them the money.
Did you negotiate at all?
No. It looked like a good price.
- So you bought it? - Yes.
Gave you the title right then and there, signed everything over to you?
- Yeah, the title that you... - And you drove it home?
How far did you have to drive it to get it home?
So our home was around the corner but we drove it on the freeway.
And 15 minutes on the freeway, it started shaking
and sensors started coming on.
Why didn't you drive it on the freeway when you test-drove the car?
You were so excited that it had low mileage?
- I mean, really? - He told us that his friend, Wes,
who owned the mechanic shop in the parking lot,
that if it had any issues, we could take it to him.
And that's you, sir, correct?
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
So let's hear from you.
You get this car when and where?
From the previous owner.
[Judge DiMango] So direct from the other owner, you got it?
- Correct. - [Judge DiMango] And when did you get it?
What point in time did you buy the car from the owner?
Um, I don't quite remember the exact days of the purchase of the vehicle.
I--we probably had it for, I'd say, two months.
When you bought the car, did you note the mileage?
Um, it's on the title, yeah.
It's not on the title.
Did you look it up on CARFAX
after you were pulled in by the advertisement?
- So I had... - No.
... no idea there was such thing as...
- [Judge DiMango] As CARFAX? - As the odometer rollback.
So I looked up the VIN and I looked up if it was a clean title
and if it had been on accidents, but...
And that's all you needed, you thought?
- Yes. - Okay. So let's go back to you guys.
You get the car. You get it from the other person.
How many cars did you ever sell in your business?
- Just... - [Judge DiMango] One.
- It was one. - [Judge DiMango] The Suburban.
- Yeah. - Oh, my God.
- Really? - Yeah.
[Judge DiMango] How long have you been in business?
- We were just starting it. - [Judge DiMango] Like an hour?
- A month. - [Judge DiMango] And are you closed now
or you're still actually working?
Yeah, that was a-- that was a previous venture, for sure.
[Judge DiMango] All right.
On the CARFAX, when you buy the car,
June 29th, do you know what the CARFAX says?
"Potential odometer rollback."
Why? Because when you got the car,
it had something like 168,000 miles.
And when she got the car, suddenly 60,000 miles were missing.
Do you know that it's a crime to roll back an odometer?
- I do now. - What business did you go into now?
Because I'm really hoping it had nothing to do with cars and mechanical stuff.
I work on--I'm an IT person.
- [Judge DiMango] You're IT? - Uh-hmm.
- And what about you? - I'm in the UTV world.
- More recreational stuff. - [Judge DiMango] All right.
- Now, let me ask you something else. - [Cari] Yeah.
- 'Cause you had that car two years. - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] And within the first few weeks,
you brought the car back to him.
Yes. We brought it back the next day.
[Judge DiMango] And did he charge you? Did Levin charge you anything?
- He didn't. It's not on record. - [Judge DiMango] No, of course not.
Because you wanted her to keep coming back,
because if she would have gone to somebody else,
they might have said this was tampered with.
So 14 months go by,
and all you put into a 2007 car,
a 16-year-old car over 14 months is $741.
That's all you paid.
Think about that.
And then five months after that, you spent how much more on it?
- About 2,500? - Twenty-five hundred.
And did you bring it to him?
You brought it to another car dealer--
- another mechanic? - We had been bringing it to a mechanic--
a different mechanic since like September of 2021.
And after that, you wanna go trade it in...
- [Cari] Yes. - ... and get what you can for it.
- But you're driving it for two years. - Yes.
So now you bring it to the car dealership
and they're the ones that say to you what?
That there was a rollback.
So you go out of your way to contact the prior owner and they tell you what?
They told me that it was in Wes's shop,
the Suburban, with a blown engine.
That it was gonna be a $4,000 fix.
And they had been texting a dealership at the time
telling them that they have a Suburban with over 150,000 miles
with a blown engine in a mechanic shop
and he was looking for a different car.
So that's why he was texting that.
And that was April before we bought it.
Okay. Now, you have to know something.
That it's not illegal to sell a vehicle
- with a rolled-back odometer. - Okay.
[Judge DiMango] It's illegal to not tell somebody about it.
But had you revealed that,
you probably would both be in the clear
instead of the police waiting for you outside,
put you in handcuffs for rolling it back.
Well, we both didn't know about it.
- Yeah, we didn't know about that. - We didn't know about that.
- The odometer said what it said. - [Judge DiMango] You both [indistinct]
to talk now.
But you're saying that when you got the vehicle from the owner,
you never put down the mileage?
- That's your position? - Um, no. We would have had the mileage.
It's on the title. There's a spot. We bought...
Show me on the title and Judge Levy will pick up the questioning.
'Cause when we got it, it had the miles that we sold it with.
How did you guys know each other? How long have you known each other?
A long time. Ten plus years.
[Judge Levy] And from where? From--you go to--you to go school...
- High school. - Friendship. We both grew up together.
Like friendships and school.
Oh, so you went to school together?
- Yeah. - Correct.
And according to your answer,
you say that in June of 2021,
you, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Levin, were gonna start their own small,
independent auto dealership for used cars.
Yes, Your Honor.
So what experience did you have selling cars as of June of 2021?
None professionally. Just selling personal cars since I was 16.
[Judge Levy] And how old are you?
I'm 35 now.
[Judge Levy] And how many cars would you say that you sold
over that period of time?
Twenty plus.
And, Mr. Levin, what specific experience do you have as a head mechanic?
Did you go to school for that?
Yes. I've gone to school with it.
- I went to MATC. - [Judge Levy] What is that?
- It's a trade school. - [Judge Levy] Okay.
School is not gonna teach you how to extract a broken bolt
or things like that.
You just have to be in the real world, you know, doing it.
So would it be fair to say that over the period of time
that you've been fixing up cars,
that you've taken apart the car from head to toe?
Yeah. On the mechanical side, absolutely.
And you, Mr. Miller, indicated
- that you are now in the IT world? - Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] That means that you're pretty good with computers.
- Yes. - You know them backwards and forwards,
- inside and out? - Yeah. I could build one. Uh-hmm.
Did you lie when you put up the ad
for the car that eventually was purchased by the plaintiffs?
[dramatic musical sting]
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
- Didn't have any problems. - It's a used vehicle.
How do they not have some problems?
I mean, I've never seen a used vehicle or even a new vehicle that's...
Really? Well, let me ask you something.
Did you tell that to the plaintiff when you sold it to her?
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Cari Johnson is suing Thomas Miller
and Wesley Levin for $10,000,
claiming they sold her a used SUV with a rolled-back odometer.
But Thomas and Wesley claim they had no idea it was rolled back
or how it could have happened.
Did you lie when you put up the ad
for the car that eventually was purchased by the plaintiffs?
No, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] So tell me how it was that you confirmed,
prior to posting the ad, that there was only one prior owner?
I just went off his word 'cause he went and bought the car.
- [Judge Levy] Went off whose word? - Wesley's, 'cause he bought the car.
[Judge Levy] Was that important to you that there was only one prior owner?
Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] And if there were, say, four owners on the car,
they were quickly turning over, would that cause you concern?
Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] You're in the business and you know that if you commit fraud,
that is you make material misrepresentations
in an advertisement that the sale is no longer considered as is.
- You know that. - I did not know that.
[Judge Levy] That's the law.
So now we know that you put down that there was only one owner.
You know that's false, right, as you stand here right now?
I do now.
I didn't get a CARFAX report so I had no idea.
[Judge Levy] You never checked it out?
Well, I just saw one owner on the title so I just figured it was a one-owner...
[Judge Levy] What was the person's name on that title?
I don't remember, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] And you haven't seen that title, right?
- Not since that day. - [Judge Levy] You don't have it with you?
No, Your Honor.
You know that it's a class B misdemeanor in the state of Utah
to purchase a car and sell a car
without indicating on the title the odometer reading.
- You know that. - Correct.
And if you sell it, you know that you're committing a crime
by not including the mileage on it, right?
Yeah. It's got boxes for it, yeah.
[Judge Levy] You may not have the title but you know who does?
She does. Let's see it.
- I'll take that Cassandra. - [Cassandra] Uh-hmm.
- Okay. - I got it. I got it.
I'm gonna make this easy for you two 'cause this is not gonna go well for you.
You should have seen what happened to the last person who lied to me.
Show it to him.
You are being shown a document.
Do you recognize that document?
[Thomas] Yes. The title.
[Judge Levy] You signed that document with the penalties of perjury,
- did you not? - Yes, I did.
[Judge Levy] Did you put the odometer reading on
when you sold it on June 28th, 2021?
- No. - [Judge Levy] So we just established
that the two of you committed a class B misdemeanor
in June 28th, 2021.
So I'm asking you now, Mr. Levin,
when you bought the car from the previous owner,
was it in good working order?
No, sir.
[Judge Levy] 'Cause it had a blown engine.
I don't believe-- no, the engine was not blown but--
you know, I got it in running condition
and I know it didn't take an engine to do that.
Okay. Mr. Miller, this is your answer.
"Wesley worked on the vehicle, inspected it, test-drove it.
The 'vehicle' was in great shape." That's what you put in your...
Yeah. I drove it for a week before I sold it to her.
You drove it for a week?
[Thomas] My house was 30 minutes away.
I drove it for an hour each day.
[Judge Levy] Good. In your answer, you said the plaintiff had
"some issues with the vehicle initially
and Wesley repaired them for her," correct?
- Correct. - [Judge Levy] Now, to you, Mr. Levin,
according to your answer, you say, "I do not owe plaintiff money
'cause I repaired and inspected her vehicle
and it did not have any issues at the time of purchase."
That's what you said, right?
- Correct. - [Judge Levy] Did you lie about that?
I didn't. I mean, no. Cars have problems.
[Judge Levy] You sure about that?
Well, it obviously had issues 'cause it came right back.
You know, it was an issue that I was not aware of at the time.
- [Thomas] Didn't have any problem... - It's a used vehicle.
How do they not have some problems?
I mean, I've never seen a used vehicle
or even a new vehicle that's in good shape.
Really? Well, let me ask you something.
Did you tell that to the plaintiff when you sold it to her?
Did you tell the plaintiff, "Hey, listen,
I can't make any representations about this car
whether it had problems, whether it doesn't have problems.
It's a used car. All used cars have problems."
That would have been honest.
But you didn't say that to her.
What you said, "It was in great working order.
No mechanical problems." Isn't that what he said to you?
Yes. He said perfect working condition.
[Judge Levy] Perfect working condition.
After driving it for a week, it didn't have any problems.
I'm not asking you how long you drove it for.
- I don't believe you anyway. - Okay.
[Judge Levy] Who is Key Auto Group?
- Who is that? - That's a dealership in Utah.
[Judge Levy] You never brought this vehicle in there to get repaired?
That wouldn't make sense for me to do that.
I do all my own repairs.
What about you, sir?
My own personal car, sure.
All right. The sale of this vehicle was June 28th, '21, correct?
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] So now this vehicle,
this Chevy Suburban, same VIN number,
was taken to Key Automotive Group on June 25th,
three days before you sold it, 2021.
And at that time,
you told them to please check over for potential vehicle purchase.
That's what you told them.
And let's see what they did.
These items were recommended to you to do today but not performed.
So this is what you knew on June 25th,
prior to selling the car to the plaintiff.
Okay. "Engine oil leaks from around pan area.
Differential cover gasket leaking.
Exhaust manifold bolt broken.
Transmission cooler line leaking.
Power steering line leaking."
Does that help refresh your recollection
as to what the two of you knew about this car
before you sold it to the plaintiff?
I had no idea about any of that.
[Judge Levy] No?
I'm gonna let Judge Acker handle that. Please, Judge Acker.
You two are just gonna deny everything.
I mean, I'm looking at a CARFAX
that shows that the vehicle was serviced
three days before she purchased it
while it was still in your possession
and there was a potential odometer rollback identified
just before she bought the car.
But you guys have no idea how that happened.
- No idea. - I had the car for a week.
Detailed it, made sure there was no problems with it, and sold it.
- I have some questions for you... - [Cari] Yes.
... because I am not sure
that it is enough that you simply prove
that you were dealing with two shady business people.
- You had this car for two years. - Yes.
Tell me how and why you're damaged.
Well, when we took it to the dealership to trade it in,
it was worth the cost of parts.
And then if we were to sell it, it would have over 200,000 miles.
[Judge Acker] Why did you wait so long?
Why did it take you two years?
Because I note that when you first bought the car,
you had problems immediately.
You took it to the defendants about three times
and then you paid the other mechanic $741.78.
Yes. And then it broke down that last...
- [Judge Acker] It was a 16-year-old car. - Yeah.
You need to explain to me why their dishonesty caused this problem
with a 16-year-old car that you were continuing to drive for two years.
So we ended up--after it broke down--
we have four kids so we have to fit into a larger vehicle.
It shakes. It doesn't feel safe.
So I have to just drive it in short distances.
I only drive the kids to practice or school with it 'cause I don't trust...
Why didn't you get a CARFAX?
Like I said, I didn't know there was an odometer rollback.
[Judge Acker] I know but you could have.
- With a little bit of diligence... - [Cari] Well, I...
... you might have been able to see
that this odometer was rolled back.
It was rolled back days before you bought it.
I just didn't know that was a common thing and now I know.
[dramatic musical sting]
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
I bet somebody who could build a computer
knows how to figure out how to roll back an odometer.
Just hazarding a guess.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Cari Johnson is suing Thomas Miller and Wesley Levin
for $10,000,
claiming they sold her a used SUV
with a rolled-back odometer.
But Thomas and Wesley claim they had no idea it was rolled back
or how it could have happened.
Now, she bought the car after it was serviced
while it was in your possession, and while it was serviced,
it was revealed that the odometer had been rolled back.
- And in fact... - I was only part of the sale.
I was a salesman. I wouldn't go get it repaired.
- [Judge Acker] Right. - It's not my job.
[Judge Acker] And you said you're an IT specialist.
- Yeah. - [Judge Acker] And I remember you said
that you could build a computer.
[Thomas] Yeah, but nothing to do with cars.
I bet somebody who could build a computer
knows how to figure out how to roll back an odometer.
Just hazarding a guess.
- No clue. - [Judge Acker] Just had no clue.
I have no connectors that can connect to your car.
[Judge Acker] I know. You're just an honest Harry.
The two of you have no idea how it happened.
That is just wild. Byrd, doesn't that sound wild?
These kind of fairy tales make me think
that I'm ready to give the case back to Judge DiMango.
Goodnight.
We're gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you both. - [Cari] Thank you.
[Byrd] Court now stands in recess.
Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
Okay. So I have a dilemma
and my dilemma is she's got a car
that she's still driving two and a half years later.
She brings it in. She says it's junk.
They don't wanna give her anything for it.
But, meanwhile, she's driving it
and could still sell it with the rolled-back odometer
provided that she notifies people that this is not accurate mileage.
So we have that versus the fact that these two people
who are in business sell a car
that we see has a rolled-back odometer
and through all the evidence, it seems only to point to them.
So that's my dilemma.
Do we unwind this deal? Do we rescind it?
Like I said, that could happen here.
If we find that they did commit this fraud,
we could rescind the deal from fraud in the inception.
Or did she get a value?
So I really wanna hear from the two of you before I go anywhere. I think I...
I am not--I am not conflicted in the least.
They lied through their teeth.
They committed criminal fraud
when they sold the vehicle to this plaintiff.
You know, listen, common sense,
we know that when the car salesman is like, "Oh, we got a--
we got a lot of people looking,"
that was just nonsense
because he put the ad up on May 18th, right?
May 18th is when he said, "Getting ready for sale."
May 18th, 'cause it was in their possession.
It was in defendant number two's possession, the mechanic,
because it had a blown engine.
They were just getting it all set up to sell.
When he's replacing the engine, which he had to do,
we know now
that's when they rolled back the odometer.
They lied to the plaintiff.
They induced her into purchasing a vehicle
that they knew had a rolled-back odometer
that, according to the plaintiff,
and I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve her testimony,
makes the car worthless.
It's worth parts.
In my opinion, any other decision that would not unwind the deal
and give her back all of the money that she spent on it
just rewards these two knuckleheads.
And I hope someone in Utah does something about these two
'cause they're gonna do it again.
I agree with you, Adam.
I think that if we let it stand,
it sort of gives people who are committing fraud an out.
- Just think of what she did. - No, no. I'm not...
- Yeah, yeah. - I'm not saying I'm not.
I'm saying that there is a bigger statement here.
- But we're judges. - Yeah.
We need to balance what we hear and what we see.
And the reality is she's sitting there still driving around.
And do I wanna reward them for that type of behavior?
- Absolutely not. That's why... - She's driving around,
but she didn't get the benefit of her bargain.
The deal that they made was for a Suburban
that had 108,000 miles on it.
The low mileage was a critical part of the deal.
Exactly. Exactly.
[Judge Levy] But that's not all.
On June 25th, three days before the sale,
they knew that the engine leaked,
the differential cover gasket was leaking, the exhaust manifold was broken,
the transmission cooler line was leaking,
the power steering line was leaking.
They knew all of that and they kept it from her.
How many times do we have these as-is cases
where we don't have that information?
And the reason they do that, in my view, the reason they do this
is because they don't know how to assess it.
They don't have the capability or the equipment to do that.
So they bring it to a dealer.
They say, "Hey, listen to my car. I wanna buy it.
Tell me what's wrong with it."
The dealer says, "This is what's wrong with it.
We could fix it for you for A, B, C, and D."
And then they say, "Great."
They take it back and either they say, "We can't fix this.
We're just gonna sell it and try to hide it,"
or they do fix it, in which case-- then there's, you know, no harm, no foul.
And they--right. And they didn't-- and they fixed nothing.
[Judge DiMango] But the bottom line here is I'm on board.
There's a greater statement to be made by the verdict in this case
than just this vehicle and whatever, and that's why it's a crime.
And I think that she should get back her $10,000.
I count the 2,000 that she lost out on as rental fees.
Got it.
[dramatic musical sting]
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
I remind parties you're still under oath.
- Thank you, Byrd. - Uh-hmm.
We are unanimous in finding
that the evidence points in only one direction
and that's at the both of you.
You both had the background, the knowledge,
and the opportunity to roll back an odometer.
Now, this is not a criminal trial
so we're not finding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But we have found by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that when you sold the plaintiff this vehicle,
you knew that you had done that.
Now, in any jurisdiction, fraud in the inception of a contract
makes it a rescindable, unenforceable contract should the parties choose
and, clearly, you're here
'cause that's the direction you wanna go in.
And so, Ms. Johnson, what you are going to do
is you are going to return the vehicle,
along with its title to the defendants.
We are unwinding this deal in its entirety.
And in exchange, you will get the $10,000 from them
that, in fact, is our jurisdictional maximum.
And that is the verdict of the court. It's unanimous.
[Byrd] This case is now concluded. Parties are excused.
You may step out.
[theme music plays]
I did not roll back the odometer.
Oh, they 100% rolled it back.
- I have no idea how to do that. - No.
It's shaking right now. It barely works.
I think it's pretty unfair too. When you buy a used car, it's as is.
We feel like it can go out at any time.
I mean, it was working great when I sold it to her.
We know now check the CARFAX.
[announcer] Have you been scammed?
Let the majority rule in your favor on Tribunal Justice.
Find us on social media.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]