Attorney Hovanes Margarian's Legal Cases

Lemon law

NON-DISCLOSURE OF PREVIOUS USE AS A RENTAL

N/A

OUTCOME: $25,838.19

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous rental Total Amount of Recovery: $25,838.19 Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. Facts of the Case: Our client purchased a 2006 Dodge Charge ... r from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been used as a rental vehicle and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase. Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s prior use as a rental. Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle having been used as a rental. Actual Damages: $2,300.00-$3,500.00 (the value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle that had never previously been used as a rental). Recovery: A full repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of attorneys’ fees totaling $25,838.19. The case settled within one month of Client retaining Hovanes Margarian. Conclusion: Client had attempted to reach an agreement with the dealership prior to retaining counsel, but was treated with disrespect and refused a remedy. Upon retaining the Hovanes Margarian, Client not only received a full refund, but also the benefit of having use of the vehicle for a period of five (5) months at no cost.

Lemon law

NON-DISCLOSURE OF PRIOR USE AS A TAXI

N/A

OUTCOME: $45,000

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of previous taxi Total Amount of Recovery: $45,000.00 Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. Facts of the Case: Our Client purchased a 2007 Mercedes-Benz ... S550 from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle was previously used as a taxi and as such, its value was substantially lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to her at the time of purchase. Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s prior use as a taxi. Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s previous use as a taxi. Actual Damages: $7,500.00 (value difference at the time of purchase between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle not previously used as a taxi; estimated at 10%). Recovery: Upon taking on representation of the client, we successfully obtained corroborating evidence that dealerships personal had documentation which evidenced that the vehicle had previously been used as a taxi. Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant’s top pre-trial offer consisting of a $45,000.00 cash offer inclusive of attorney’s fees. Conclusion: Client recovered essentially the equivalent of all her payments plus the benefit of having driven the vehicle over a period of two (2) years at no cost.

Lemon law

NON-DISCLOSURE OF FRAME DAMAGE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE INVOLVING A DEALER FRAUD CASE

N/A

OUTCOME: $75,000

Client vs. Client’s Prior Attorney Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of frame damage and legal malpractice Total Amount of Recovery: $75,000.00 Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. Fact ... s of the Case: Our Client purchased a 2004 Mercedes SL 600 from a large franchise new car dealership. Subsequently, it was discovered that the subject vehicle had previously been involved in a major collision and had sustained frame damage. The repairs were conducted by the selling dealership. Client had retained an independent attorney (“client’s prior attorney”) to represent him in the dealer fraud matter against the dealership. Following nearly two (2) years of litigation, unbeknown to Client, his prior attorney filed a dismissal of the entire case and through doing so barred the Client from pursuing his claims in the future. In representing the Client, Hovanes Margarian established the legal and factual basis of the dealership’s fraudulent conduct, and thereafter established that but for the prior attorney’s errors, the client would have prevailed against the selling dealership. After nearly one year of intense litigation, the prior attorney was compelled to pay the client’s damages since the dealership could no longer be held responsible for its fraudulent conduct. Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the frame damage on the vehicle at the time of purchase. Defendants’ Contentions: The franchised new car dealership which had sold the vehicle contended that it had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s frame damage and prior accident. Once the case turned against the prior attorney for negligent handling of the matter he too began to contend that the client’s claims had no merits. Actual Damages: $28,000.00 (value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle without frame damage; estimated at 30%). Recovery: $75,000.00 inclusive of attorney’s fees. Conclusion: Client recovered a significant sum of money and the benefit of having driven the vehicle for nearly 2.5 years. Note that the client was not in possession of the subject vehicle at the time of retaining the Hovanes Margarian, which made the case even more challenging. Attorney Selection: As this case demonstrates, there may be other attorneys eager to represent you. However, selecting the right attorney will assure an appropriate recovery and minimize your time investment. This case lasted two extra years due to the prior attorney’s negligent conduct.

Lemon law

DEALER FRAUD – NON-DISCLOSURE OF FRAME DAMAGE

N/A

OUTCOME: $23,850.00

Type of Case: Dealer Fraud – non-disclosure of frame damage Total Amount of Recovery: $23,850.00 Attorneys: Hovanes Margarian, Esq. Facts of the Case: Client purchased a 2004 BMW 530i from Defen ... dants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had frame damage and as such, its value was significantly lower than perceived at the time of sale. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to him at the time of purchase. Client’s Contentions: Client alleged fraudulent conduct with regard to the failure to disclose the subject vehicle’s frame damage. Defendants’ Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no knowledge of the subject vehicle’s frame damage. Actual Damages: $5,000.00 (value difference between the subject vehicle and a similar vehicle without frame damage). Recovery: By the time the client retained Hovanes Margarian, the dealership had closed. As such, we pursued the claims against the dealership’s insurance company and negotiated a repurchase and payment of $23,850 inclusive of attorney’s fees. The vehicle was valued roughly half the amount of the settlement. The case settled within nine months of retaining the Law Offices of Hovanes Margarian. Conclusion: Client recovered essentially the equivalent of all his payments plus the benefit of having driven the vehicle over a period of nine (9) months at no cost.

Lemon law

LEMON LAW CASES

N/A

OUTCOME: Full refunds according to the CA Lemon Law

Each year we handle literally hundreds of Lemon Law and Dealer Fraud cases. Specifically, we have handled cases against practically EVERY automobile manufacturer (including but not limited to against B ... MW, Audi, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, VW, Mini, Smart, Chevy) and recovered MILLIONS for our clients. On the individual level, our clients routinely obtain full refunds of all their payments (their down payment, monthly payment, incidental/repair/towing/rental/etc. expenses) less the legal offset plus we recover our fees separate from the client's recovery. Thus in a successful case our clients obtain FREE top notch legal representation at no cost to them. Every case is different thus we urge you to consult us if you feel you have a case. We cannot post specific case details for most lemon law cases because most settlements include confidentiality clauses which preclude us from indicating the exact amount of the statutory refund received by our client.

Hovanes Margarian's Legal Cases (5)

NON-DISCLOSURE OF PREVIOUS USE AS A RENTAL

NON-DISCLOSURE OF PRIOR USE AS A TAXI

NON-DISCLOSURE OF FRAME DAMAGE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE INVOLVING A DEALER FRAUD CASE

DEALER FRAUD – NON-DISCLOSURE OF FRAME DAMAGE

LEMON LAW CASES