## Facts

- The Copelands owned and operated C & C Car Sales, a Missouri-licensed used car dealership.
- The dealership’s licensed location was moved to 202 Evans in Raymore, which was also the location of Bob Lees’s auto body repair business, Auto Body Plus.
- Larry Copeland and Lees made an unwritten arrangement: C & C would be located at Auto Body Plus for dealer-licensing purposes, and Lees could use C & C dealer tags.
- The arrangement was reflected by outward indicia connecting Lees to C & C, including a C & C Car Sales sign at Auto Body Plus and business cards listing Lees as an owner of C & C.
- Billy Shiplet paid money toward a Pontiac from Lees (or through Lees’s son), but Billy never received the car because promised repairs were not completed.
- Billy later acquired a Volkswagen through Lees and drove it using a C & C dealer tag.
- Lees did not deliver title to the Volkswagen, and the vehicle developed mechanical problems leading Billy to return it and demand a refund.
- Billy sued the Copelands and Lees under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) for deceptive practices relating to vehicle condition and title; after Billy died, his personal representative, Julie Shiplet, was substituted.
- After a bench trial, the court awarded: (i) $9,000 jointly and severally against the Copelands and Lees for one transaction, and (ii) $5,705.73 against Lees for the other; the court denied attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff under the MMPA.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in calculating the $9,000 actual-damages award.
3. Whether the Copelands were legally liable under the MMPA for Lees’s conduct in selling a vehicle to Billy given the parties’ licensing arrangement and how the sales were presented to consumers.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment in full.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney’s fees under the MMPA.
- The evidence supported the trial court’s calculation of the $9,000 damages award.
- The Copelands were properly held liable under the MMPA for Lees’s vehicle sale based on the dealership’s licensing arrangement and the manner in which Lees was held out as acting for C & C.

## Legal Principles

- Under the MMPA, deceptive acts and practices in connection with the sale of merchandise (including motor vehicles) can support an award of actual damages.
- A business may be held responsible under the MMPA for deceptive sales made by another when the evidence supports that the seller acted on the business’s behalf or with apparent authority created by the business’s outward representations.
- A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees under the MMPA, but the award is discretionary; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- In a bench trial, damage findings and calculations are reviewed deferentially and will be upheld if supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld MMPA liability and damages arising from two vehicle transactions, concluding that the dealership’s licensing and branding arrangement supported holding it responsible for sales made through the body shop operator, and it affirmed the trial court’s discretionary denial of attorney’s fees.


Shiplet v. Copeland, 450 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2014)