Audi owner battles with VAST to recover S4
The Lawsuit
This S4 owner’s car was held by VAST and the owner needed to take legal action to finally get the car back.
VAST lawsuit doc 1 - Complaint: Zawel vs VAST Performance LLC
Main points from this document are:
Amount: Exceeding $25,000.00
Allegations:
At all times relevant, VAST owned a motor vehicle repair facility and represented to the public that it’s business conducts motor vehicle maintenance, repair and performance part installation.
On May 24, 2011 the Secretary of State issued a document evidencing that VAST had not previously registered as a motor vehicle repair facility as required by the Michigan Motor Vehicle Service Repair Act. It was not until June 10, 2011 that VAST registered as a motor vehicle repair facility.
On December 15, 2009 Alex Zawel’s Audi S4 made its initial trip to VAST for repairs and upgrades.
June 2010 the work was not yet completed and VAST could not provide an estimated completion date. Alex also requested to have removed and replaced components returned.
Around July 14, 2010 VAST reported an unusual engine noise during clutch break-in requiring repair work.
On August 17, 2010 VAST reported that the newly installed fuel pump failed during a test drive.
On September 23, 2010 VAST reported a camshaft correlation fault during tuning.
October 7, 2010 (10 months after beginning) vehicle was returned to owner. During removal of S4 from transport vehicle owner noticed large amounts of billowing white smoke coming from exhaust. Owner notified VAST of condition and VAST advised owner that same condition was present prior to returning vehicle to owner. Owner then discovered nine additional problem areas with vehicle.
None of the parts that had been requested for return had been returned.
October 26, 2010 owner pays VAST invoice in full. Both parties agree to transport S4 back to VAST for additional repairs and that VAST would pay transportation, diagnostic, and repair costs.
January 29, 2011 vehicle is transported back to VAST’s facility.
Around February 11, 2011 VAST breaks the slave cylinder during diagnostic tests.
Around February 23, 2011 VAST states that diagnostic test show turbo is defective. Turbo manufacturer claims turbo’s were free from any damage or defects. VAST refuses to perform any additional work and demands owner pay transportation costs from owners location to the VAST shop, diagnostic and repair work and cost to return vehicle to owner.
VAST then took possession of Alex Zawel’s vehicle claiming they had a right to indefinite possession unless owner paid VAST $3500.
September 23, 2011 the complaint is signed.
December 8, 2011 owners car is returned. Here’s some pictures of how it came back, after VAST had the car FOR 2 YEARS!
December 13, 2011 the case is dismissed.
The Lawsuit (Cont.)
The following are additional documents associated with this lawsuit.
VAST lawsuit doc 4 - Request for Admissions
VAST lawsuit doc 5 - Dismissal with prejudice.
The final document, the dismissal is informative. It states,
“STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE”
“The parties have stipulated to dismiss this case with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to the terms of a Confidential Settlement and release Agreement;...”
The third page, which is an email from the owner’s law firm (Mitchell Boardman) to the defendant’s law firm (Jordan Bolton) is interesting, it reads:
“Jordan,
We have the money and the car. You can sign my name on the Dismissal Order and have it entered. Please sign the Consent Judgement and Reinstatement Order and return them to me. I will hold in the event of breach of the last payment”
The Stroble Law Firm, P.C.