The Los Angeles Times reported that Robert Beverly, a California Republican who served in the state legislature as both an assemblymember and a senator, passed away recently at his Southern California home. Beverly, along with Democrat Al Song, were at the leading edge of crafting laws that protect California consumers, including the Song-Beverly Act that created the state’s lemon law.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is being urged to sign AB 647, which would require the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles to comply with federal law and allow consumer access to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS).

According to the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada,

“Established under the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, NMVTIS is an electronic vehicle-history database maintained by the Department of Justice that enables states, law enforcement agencies, and consumers to verify and exchange auto titling, theft and brand data. California is currently the only state participating in NMVTIS that also restricts releasing the data to consumers. The DMV entered a contract with a third party information converter, and as a stipulation of that agreement, restricted direct consumer access to NMVTIS. California consumers must go thorough this third party provider, paying upwards of $30 per vehicle for data. NMVTIS charges only at-cost prices for similar information. AB 647 calls on the DMV to comply with federal law and lift consumer access restrictions.”

In other words, instead of being able to access information directly from the DMV, Californians have to pay CarFax in order to obtain a vehicle’s history. An article in the Los Angeles Times in early September reported that the DMV has ended the CarFax contract early, paving the way for compliance. But a recent editorial in the Sacramento Bee notes that the DMV is opposing the bill, and urges the Governor to sign the bill into law. As the Bee so aptly noted, “The national database protects consumers from unsafe and stolen cars only if they have access to it.”

If anyone at Saleen Inc., a high-performance car manufacturer, is superstitious, a California court’s ruling in March – on Friday the 13th – reinforced their worst fears. That’s when the Orange County Superior Court awarded Dan Echino a $525,000 lemon law award against Saleen for a defective 2005 S7 twin turbo. According to Gary Berkovich, the plaintiff’s attorney, “Consumers have the right to expect that the items they purchase will be free from defects or will be fixed by the manufacturer, no matter if it is a television or the family car. This right and expectation becomes monumentally more important when you take into consideration that defects could be life-threatening if they occur in your vehicle.” We wholeheartedly agree.

Amanda L. Seymour, a traffic attorney in California, is sitting in the guest blogger’s chair today. She works with truckers to ensure that they don’t lose their licenses.

As an attorney, it is incredibly frustrating to tell a client, “I can’t help you.” However, what makes a situation more frustrating is to tell a client, “I can’t help you, but I could have if you had only called me sooner.”

Commercial drivers know how important their right to drive is. If they can’t drive, they can’t work. It is as simple as that. In addition to their ability to work, a clean driving record can even help them obtain better employment, as many companies will not hire a driver with a bad record. A clean driving record can even help a driver in court. Many courts are much more lenient on a driver with a clean record than they are if the driver has a lot of tickets on his record.

If you’re a commercial driver, a good traffic attorney can help you with almost any charge. In California, there are a lot of vehicle code sections that carry no points. Officers don’t write these sections because they either don’t know about them or because their bosses have told them not to. However, once you get into court, everything changes. A good traffic attorney knows how to talk to the officers and the court and can try to get you the best deal possible. But, you do have to help-you have to call that traffic attorney when you get your ticket!

By the time the Department of Motor Vehicles threatens to suspend your license, it is too late. I have talked to so many truckers lately who are going to be, or have been, suspended because they received too many points. And each one I have had to tell, “I can’t help you. It is too late.” However, I have also told each one, “I could have helped if you had called when you got that last ticket.”

I hear all the excuses:

“I couldn’t afford to hire an attorney so I just pleaded guilty.” Can you afford to not work for 6 months?

“I was guilty so I didn’t think I should fight the ticket.” That doesn’t mean there isn’t a charge out there that won’t carry a point.

The DMV is not going to stop a suspension. A DMV hearing only delays the suspension – it is going to happen. However, an attorney in court can possibly stop a suspension. Don’t lose your license and your job because you don’t want to pick up the phone.

We’re pleased that our friend Donald Ladew from Norman Taylor & Associates is sitting in the guest blogger’s chair today. Thanks, Donald, for this great information about arbitration.

It’s an unfortunate fact that the courts around the country are badly overloaded. The government, which has to fund the court system, loves the idea of arbitration because it saves money and court time. For this reason, lemon laws often include a method for trying to resolve lemon law disputes informally. Quite sensibly, though, the Congress did not deprive consumers of access to the courts. Under Magnuson-Moss (the Federal consumer warranty law), the consumer is not required to accept the result of the informal dispute resolution process. At Norman Taylor & Associates, we are frequently asked about arbitration. We do not recommend it. In California, the consumer may opt out of the arbitration process. Fortunately, many states, New York included, allow the consumer to opt out of the arbitration process.

The problem in any situation requiring arbitration is equality. At the risk of being trite, there ought to be a level playing field.  In California, the legislators who created our excellent Lemon Law understood this. In California the Song-Beverly Act does not require the consumer to go to arbitration once all options that might correct the defective vehicle have been tried.

Manufacturers love arbitration. It’s just another step in the gauntlet of delays and deceptions meant to prevent the consumer’s access to the lemon law. The goal of the manufacturer is to make the consumer give up and go away. Any delay favors the manufacturer, who is not the one driving the defective vehicle. The motive is the oldest of them all…or perhaps the second oldest, money. Worst case for the manufacturer is a refund or a replacement. If the manufacturer has to pay the consumer, that is money the corporation cannot earn income from.

Why is the playing field not level?

• The individual doesn’t have the resources or time to devote to the arbitration process.
• The consumer doesn’t have access to legal assistance.
• The consumer cannot afford to bring experts to the arbitration.
• The manufacturer can afford the expense, time and travel necessary to attend the arbitration.
• Consumers are unfamiliar with the law and with the arbitration process. This can lead to awards to the manufacturer even though the facts of the case are relatively clear.
• Even arbitrators are not always lawyers or are they familiar with the lemon law – probably because they are not required to follow that law when issuing their decisions.

What we see most often at the conclusion of arbitration is the award of another repair attempt to the manufacturer. Two or three months may have passed to accomplish this! The consumer attending the arbitration most often has already tried to get the vehicle repaired four, five, or even six times. This is not resolution; this is a gift to the manufacturer.

If there is going to be any gift giving, let the manufacturer do it; they are the one’s most in need of our good will.

At Norman Taylor & Associates our Attorneys are specialists in California Lemon Law. Our goal at Norman Taylor & Associates is to provide the highest quality legal representation possible.

Norman Taylor, the principal attorney, co-authored the first book on California Lemon Law entitled: Lemon Law – A Manual for Consumers. He recently authored his second book on the lemon law entitled: Lemon Law – The Standard Reference Guide, which enjoys distribution and recognition on a national level. His firms have handled over 6,000 lemon law cases forcing vehicle manufacturers to refund well over $100,000,000 for defective goods to consumers.