Sold TDI Prior to Scandal - Get Nothing

Lets see how the OP makes out. I sold a classic buick in 1997 that today is worth more money. If he gets money i should get money.

I sold a home in San Diego in 1998 when the market was soft. Within a couple of years the house was worth twice what I sold it for.

Should I expect someone to pay me the difference?

drewnyc said:

I sold my Golf TDI two weeks prior to the scandal breaking for $14K. I checked the VW website and I get nothing. The guy who bought my TDI gets $13.5K for the car PLUS $5,500 in restitution!

That doesn't seem right. I paid a premium for the car in 2009. Anybody else in this boat?

Click to expand...

I almost bought $10K of Microsoft stock when it first went public... I decided not to. Oh well who wants to be a multi millionaire.

gmcjetpilot said:

I almost bought $10K of Microsoft stock when it first went public... I decided not to. Oh well who wants to be a multi millionaire.

Click to expand...

I was a millionaire before the dot com stock market crash. No so after.

Not reading all the posts, only read the first few, nad skimmed a few more on the first page, so if this has been said already I apologize: The new owner would get about $13,000, not $13,000 plus multiple thousands more. So, I hope that this news acted as a little dab of Preparation H.

You might have bought the car under false pretenses, but you also sold it under those same pretenses. Should the new buyer sue you for falsely representing the car?
You, personally, were not harmed in the slightest by this scandal. Well, other than needing a salve. As a matter of fact, you sold it for more than the person is getting. I think you may owe them some cash.

I sunk $500 in a slot machine. Won nothing. A slime plays after I gave up and won big in the second spin. That's my money. Give it me. He took my money. I've been defrauded. I won't let this stand.

The one ingredient missing in all of your various examples is fraud. Ipso facto they are irrelevant.

Fine. Sue VW then, if the statute of limitations hasn't already run, and you can find a lawyer to take the case. You aren't part of the class action and have never been. Complaining here will accomplish nothing.

This lawyer says you don't have a case, but I'm not your lawyer, and you aren't my client.

NYC-TDI has *two* claims. He claims to be a former owner, that sold outside of 'terms' & his feelings are hurt.

You were not defrauded, you were lied to. To have been defrauded, you would have needed to have suffered materially as a result of the lie. Being butthurt that people after you got paid and you didn't doesn't make it fraud.

grawk said:

butthurt

Click to expand...

Seems to be a favorite expression of many here, as well as elementary schools around the country.

Is there a more appropriate term?

What is missing from the OP's complaint is civil damages. He suffered none. VW is paying for its fraud with government fines.

And the restitution is in part to induce current owners to either sell back their cars, or have them modified. As you got rid of your car before any emission problem was publicly known, there is no reason to give you an inducement.

DanB36 said:

Fine. Sue VW then, if the statute of limitations hasn't already run, and you can find a lawyer to take the case. You aren't part of the class action and have never been. Complaining here will accomplish nothing.

This lawyer says you don't have a case, but I'm not your lawyer, and you aren't my client.

Click to expand...

How do you think he doesn't have a case? He isn't part of the class action suit but that doesn't mean he couldn't be part of a class comprised of previous owners. There is certainly an argument to be made that he's been a victim of consumer fraud. If anything, secondary market owners shouldn't be getting any of the restitution. Out of the past three high profile class actions none have been structured like this.

As previously discussed in many places, including in this very thread, I (and plenty of others) don't see that a pre-9/17 seller has suffered any damages, which are an essential element of a civil fraud claim. But I'm not licensed in New York, so I'm not going to be taking his case in any event. If he thinks he has a case, and can find an attorney who agrees, NYC-TDI should pursue it.

Proving real dollars-and-cents damages will prove to be a challenge.

My friend Art sold his common-rail TDI in 2012 before the scandal became public. What's his share???

GoFaster said:

Proving real dollars-and-cents damages will prove to be a challenge.

My friend Art sold his common-rail TDI in 2012 before the scandal became public. What's his share???

Click to expand...

He doesn't need to "prove" anything in a settlement. As I wrote earlier, this (and other) settlements are out of court agreements between private parties. They don't have the same legal structure as an adjudicated case. The fact that the dates are somewhat arbitrary (and subsequently leave holes for some parties and not others, for example, people who are holding salvage titles) should be one objective indicator if you don't want to simply take my word on this.

To answer your question: if the restitution is based on VW's fraudulent behavior then your friend should get 100% of it and any subsequent purchasers should get none. If it's based on diminished value then he should get none and current owners should get all of it. Then you can slice it up accordingly among the parties that have shared the damage within the past couple years (to clear up one faulty premise that has been floated repeatedly here and in other threads: the court case has been going on for nearly a year but the scandal has been known for around two years. Apparently some people have not been following it the entire time, but that's not to say the market has been ignoring this for as long as certain members have been ignorant of the situation).

One only has to review any of the most recent settlements to understand how this plays out. The settlements went to the original purchasers, not anyone who ended up with the products at any time in their lifespan. Perhaps people really are dimwitted enough to belief that second-hand, private party sales carry the same kinds of legal protections and warranties as initial sales do, but then again if there's one thing that never fails to surprise me it's how incapable people can be in applying critical thought to their circumstances so there's always that. If someone wants to equate a manufacturer making a false bold claim as part of an advertisement to someone selling something out of a garage (with the caveat that the private party is not also advertising and warrantying certain factual claims, which would then alter the nature of the transaction) far be it for me to interject reason into such a "comparison."

If its a "settlement", the parties to the settlement determine who qualifies, and who does not. And individuals can choose whether accept what has been negotiated through the settlement, or reject it as inadequate.

His good news is, he can opt out of the settlement and pursue his claim in the courts if that is his inclination.

k1xv said:

If its a "settlement", the parties to the settlement determine who qualifies, and who does not. And individuals can choose whether accept what has been negotiated through the settlement, or reject it as inadequate.

His good news is, he can opt out of the settlement and pursue his claim in the courts if that is his inclination.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree (other than to point out it's the judge, not the parties, who certifies the class). That's why I suggested that if he wants to pursue his claim he can do so individually, either with an individual lawsuit or by contacting the court and pointing out that any restitution paid out to compensate owners for VW's fraudulent behavior should rightly go to original purchasers, or as part of a class of original purchasers in a separate class action.

I received the settlement info booklet in the mail today. On page 19 it explicitly states

"The Class Action Settlement does not resolve legal claims related to:
(2) former owners who sold their vehicles prior to September 18, 2015"

I take it then that such legal claims exist (as well they should) and the court is aware of them. Does anyone know of any legal firms working on this aspect of the case?

drewnyc said:

Agree. VW made a profit from me by defrauding me. But for the fraud, I would not have bought the car. There should be a theory of economic harm somewhere in there.

Click to expand...

The only real harm you suffered due to the fraud is the same harm that affected everyone in your community, increase in NOx emissions. Perhaps your only argument applying specifically to you might be some physiological harms. Why don't you try unrequited entitlement syndrome (UES) and stress due to jealousy towards others who were harmed and are being compensated. Good luck convincing a judge.

"Economic harm" means losses of dollars and cents. Just feeling that you had been fooled into buying something has no economic loss. Maybe an emotional loss. You should sue for hurt feelings.

Economic harm = the difference in price between what I bought (a deceptively advertised, deliberately environmentally harmful vehicle) and what I could have purchased (a lower priced environmentally friendly vehicle).

I don't understand why that is so difficult a concept for some.

A- you conveniently forgot what your recovered in the sale in measuring your "economic loss" and

B- you fail to establish a difference in price, and a difference in resale value, of your supposedly "environmentally friendly vehicle". What vehicle was that "environmentally friendly vehicle", what did it cost at the time you purchased vs what you paid, and what was its sale value at the time you sold?

And how do you account for the fuel costs you saved?

bizzle said:

If the restitution is based on diminished value then no, but if it's based on consumer fraud it's a valid point to raise that it should be spilt equitably along all previous owners.

Click to expand...

Very well sum'd up..
Iam in the same situation as OP, Had a 2012 VW JSW that i had to buy to my exact specs ship it across the country - drive it for couple of years & then had to get a Passat (Which i still have) by trading in the JSW.
I cannot blame someone for my urge to change new cars every few years, But VWoA had considerable impact with the VW Clean Diesel Campaigns. How is not a Fraud?

oilhammer said:

That about sums it up for a LOT of people on these forums lately. There was always a few complainers, but they typically were short lived and went away. But suddenly around September of last year the flood gates opened and 11ty squared people joined with seemingly no other purpose than to whine and cry. I feel confident that these people will soon fade away, but there are just SO MANY of them right now. I can only assume the rest of their lives are picture perfect and that all they have to be mad/sad about is their cars. Life is too short for that. If you are not a "car guy", that is, and it would seem pretty obvious most of those people are not.

Click to expand...

At least it is contained to one sub forum now...which a guy can easily skip over.

greengeeker said:

At least it is contained to one sub forum now...which a guy can easily skip over.

Click to expand...

Thank you greengeeker for taking the time to add a comment to this subforum and choosing NOT to skip. we really appreciate your contributions.

mnm2008 said:

Thank you greengeeker for taking the time to add a comment to this subforum and choosing NOT to skip. we really appreciate your contributions.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

oilhammer said:

That about sums it up for a LOT of people on these forums lately. There was always a few complainers, but they typically were short lived and went away. But suddenly around September of last year the flood gates opened and 11ty squared people joined with seemingly no other purpose than to whine and cry. I feel confident that these people will soon fade away, but there are just SO MANY of them right now. I can only assume the rest of their lives are picture perfect and that all they have to be mad/sad about is their cars. Life is too short for that. If you are not a "car guy", that is, and it would seem pretty obvious most of those people are not.

Click to expand...

I agree. There is very little useful information contained in these emissions issue threads but they continue going on and on with whiners and their sense of entitlement.

To me this thread is like a guy who bought a lottery ticket and like 99.999999999% of ticket holders he didn't win so he is whining that he was defrauded and someone owes him.

iii. Objections Regarding the Class Definition​

o​

[/FONT]

Some individuals have objected to the Settlement’s failure to include vehicles sold and​

leases terminated prior to the defeat device’s disclosure. The Class Definition requires Class​

Members to have owned or leased their Eligible Vehicles on September 18, 2015. (​

1685 ¶ 2.16.) Thus, these individuals are not Class Members, and the Court need not consider​

their objections.​

1021, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (“[N]onclass members have no standing to object to the settlement of​

a class action.”).