(A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier, the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer shall make any repairs as are necessary to conform the vehicle to such express warranty, notwithstanding the fact that the repairs are made after the expiration of the appropriate time period.
(B) If the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer is unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repairing or correcting any nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the manufacturer, at the consumer's option and subject to division (D) of this section, either shall replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle acceptable to the consumer or shall accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund each of the following:
(1) The full purchase price;
(2) All incidental damages, including, but not limited to, any fees charged by the lender or lessor for making or canceling the loan or lease, and any expenses incurred by the consumer as a result of the nonconformity, such as charges for towing, vehicle rental, meals, and lodging.
(C) Nothing in this section imposes any liability on a new motor vehicle dealer or creates a cause of action by a buyer against a new motor vehicle dealer.
(D) Sections 1345.71 to 1345.78 of the Revised Code do not affect the obligation of a consumer under a loan or retail installment sales contract or the interest of any secured party, except as follows:
(1) If the consumer elects to take a refund, the manufacturer shall forward the total sum required under division (B) of this section by an instrument jointly payable to the consumer and any lienholder that appears on the face of the certificate of title or the lessor. Prior to disbursing the funds to the consumer, the lienholder or lessor may deduct the balance owing to it, including any fees charged for canceling the loan or the lease and refunded pursuant to division (B) of this section, and shall immediately remit the balance if any, to the consumer and cancel the lien or the lease.
(2) If the consumer elects to take a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall notify any lienholder noted on the certificate of title under section 4505.13 of the Revised Code or the lessor. If both the lienholder or the lessor and the consumer consent to finance or lease the new motor vehicle obtained through the exchange in division (B) of this section, the lienholder or the lessor shall release the lien on or surrender the title to the nonconforming motor vehicle after it has obtained a lien on or title to the new motor vehicle. If the existing lienholder or lessor does not finance or lease the new motor vehicle, it has no obligation to discharge the note or cancel the lien on or surrender the title to the nonconforming motor vehicle until the original indebtedness or the lease terms are satisfied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004).
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 17ד{¶ 14} The Lemon Law provides the purchaser with a statutory cause of action if the manufacturer does not comply with R.C. 1345.72. However, the consumer must first resort to an informal dispute-resolution process if one exists.”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 10ד73’s presumption a “presumption of recovery” is to muddle the relationship between R.C. 1345.72 and 1345.73. These are two separate statutes with distinct functions.”
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 4ד” {¶ 36} R.C. 1345.72 provides as follows: “(A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of…”
Pearn v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 772 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4ד{¶ 80} “(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of division (A) of this section, if a new motor vehicle has been returned under the provisions of section 1345.72 of the Revised Code or a similar law of another state because of a nonconformity likely to cause death or serious bodily…”
Iams v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 883 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5ד* * * R.C. 1345.72. “Nonconformity” is defined as “any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor.”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6דThis court summarized this case’s pre-2005 history in Mercedes-Benz’s 2007 appeal as follows: Appellee, Thomas Ulrich, filed a complaint against [Mercedes-Benz] regarding a Mercedes-Benz automobile, alleging two counts of breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,…”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2דOhio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.72 (A). The Complaint History notes that the Motor Home reached 18,000 miles sometime in March 2000, after the first anniversary of ownership.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4דR.C. 1345.72, which is the operative portion of the Lemon Law, provides that: “(A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of…”
Lucas v. Ford Motor Co., 2018 Ohio 3765 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2דThe consumer may reject the decision and pursue a civil action under R.C. 1345.”
Yommer v. Outdoor Enter., Inc., 711 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3ד71(D) defines a “motor vehicle” as “any passenger car or noncommercial motor vehicle as defined in section 4501.”
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5דFord seizes on this omission, maintaining that because R.C. 1345.72 does not specifically detail a refund process for the recovery of finance *538 charges from a consumer’s home equity line of credit, it is not obligated to appellee for these charges.”
Lester v. Fca Us, L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 1776 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2ד{¶26} R.C. 1345.72 provides in relevant part: (A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of…”
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007). “” {¶ 36} R.C. 1345.72 provides as follows: “(A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of…”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). “73’s presumption a “presumption of recovery” is to muddle the relationship between R.C. 1345.72 and 1345.73. These are two separate statutes with distinct functions.”
Yommer v. Outdoor Enter., Inc., 711 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “71(D) defines a “motor vehicle” as “any passenger car or noncommercial motor vehicle as defined in section 4501.”
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). “{¶ 14} The Lemon Law provides the purchaser with a statutory cause of action if the manufacturer does not comply with R.C. 1345.72. However, the consumer must first resort to an informal dispute-resolution process if one exists.”
Lucas v. Ford Motor Co., 2018 Ohio 3765 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “The consumer may reject the decision and pursue a civil action under R.C. 1345.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.72(B) — 14 cases
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). “{¶ 14} The Lemon Law provides the purchaser with a statutory cause of action if the manufacturer does not comply with R.C. 1345.72. However, the consumer must first resort to an informal dispute-resolution process if one exists.”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). “73’s presumption a “presumption of recovery” is to muddle the relationship between R.C. 1345.72 and 1345.73. These are two separate statutes with distinct functions.”
Iams v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 883 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “* * * R.C. 1345.72. “Nonconformity” is defined as “any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor.”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). “Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.72 (A). The Complaint History notes that the Motor Home reached 18,000 miles sometime in March 2000, after the first anniversary of ownership.”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “This court summarized this case’s pre-2005 history in Mercedes-Benz’s 2007 appeal as follows: Appellee, Thomas Ulrich, filed a complaint against [Mercedes-Benz] regarding a Mercedes-Benz automobile, alleging two counts of breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.72(B)(1) — 2 cases
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Ford seizes on this omission, maintaining that because R.C. 1345.72 does not specifically detail a refund process for the recovery of finance *538 charges from a consumer’s home equity line of credit, it is not obligated to appellee for these charges.”
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Ford seizes on this omission, maintaining that because R.C. 1345.72 does not specifically detail a refund process for the recovery of finance *538 charges from a consumer’s home equity line of credit, it is not obligated to appellee for these charges.”
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Ford seizes on this omission, maintaining that because R.C. 1345.72 does not specifically detail a refund process for the recovery of finance *538 charges from a consumer’s home equity line of credit, it is not obligated to appellee for these charges.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.