ÿWPCV h@PÞgêãê‘+§åÔüáºp©¦ÃJ™GÇÿèÜc,ÃÚÄÇJR,ìQ±M¸Lê0$_³²wØ´ P;€®…tÞÃå÷!}šŽè‡˜Ý1÷‘â\¯óx5(¶¯p™Qjo“Dûâ\;…q} Ü£RÛ*O·þÕHÏ Y«¥ðxˆ{_Qù§ÜÌB¯ÛQtË~âÀ²´ÆîËV6¶K54³Ãž½_åökî–Þ€†ža0$ð’ëѵZY´ð§»g:)üºSô–u(˜?E@AEBCEDEÓ€Q Ô€XßyXXXÔÔ€îiîXXßyÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€W­îîiÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€21,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÒ ôW­ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ XßyXXXÔÔ€ îiîX XßyÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ W­î îiÔÐ  ÐÌò òMay€21,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÒ ô W­ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñQñ›ñQñѰÑÒܰÒÑܰÑÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€š0XXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€X>XXXÔÔ€Š´£ŠXX>ÔñQññEñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨ÓrßñEññQññQñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨ÓrßñQñÌ›€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌœó óÌÌÌ›ÌÌMIKE€HARVEY,€on€behalf€of€himselfà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9807„CV„00235Ð   Ðand€all€others€similarly€situated,à ” àà ì à)€€Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€ROANE€CIRCUITÌà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€RUSSELL€SIMMONS,€JR.,€Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÐ  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌFORD€MOTOR€CREDIT€COMPANY,à ì àœ)€AFFIRMED›Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendant„Appellee.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌœÌÌ›ÌGORDON€BALL,€Knoxville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌSTEVEN€D.€LIPSEY,€STONE€&€HINDS,€P.C.,€Knoxville,€and€THOMAS€M.ÏBYRNE€and€DANIEL€H.€SCHLUETER,€SUTHERLAND,€ASBILL€&€BRENNAN,ÏLLP,€Atlanta,€for€Defendant„Appellee.ÌÌœPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€Tennessee€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€andÌTñ=ññ<ñO,ñ<ññ=ññ>ñIMOTHY€ñ>ññ?ññ>ñc./€ñ>ññ?ññAññ@ñc.ñ@ññAññBñC.€PHILLIPS,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€AñBññCññBñ,mñBññCññDñmicus€Curiae€forÏthe€State€of€Tennessee.ÌñDñ›ÌœÌ›Ìà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ +$$ ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àAppellant€filed€œhis›€complaint€designated€a€class€action,€œalleging›€thatÏFord€Motor€Credit€Company€(ð ðFord€Creditðð)€engaged€in€a€scheme€with€Ford€dealersÏto€mislead€consumers€and€conceal€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve.€€The€complaintÏinitially€alleged€two€causes€of€action€based€on€Ford€Creditððs€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€(ð ðTCPAðð)€and€unjust€enrichment.€€The€TrialÐ :þ23ý ÐCourt€conditionally€certified€the€requested€class€of€consumers,€but€subsequently€setÏaside€that€order.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àAppellant€œpurchased›€a€used€van€at€a€Ford€dealer€in€Harriman€in€1996.€ÏThe€dealer€arranged€financing€for€the€vehicle€through€appellee,€Ford€Motor€CreditÏCompany,€and€according€to€the€complaint,€appellant€was€unaware€that€the€interest€rateÏhe€received€included€not€only€Ford€Creditððs€regular€rate,€but€an€additional€percentage.€ÏA€portion€of€the€additional€interest€rate€is€generally€payable€to€the€dealer€by€FordÏCredit.€€This€practice€is€commonly€known€as€ð ðdealer€reserveðð.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àœAppellant›€subsequently€amended€his€Complaint€to€include€a€third€causeÏof€action€for€civil€conspiracy.€€œResponding€to€Ford€Creditððs€Motion€to€Dismiss,€the›ÏTrial€Court€dismissed€the€Amended€œComplaint,›€holding€(1)€that€the€AmendedÏComplaint€failed€to€comply€with€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€9.02;€(2)€that€reliance€was€a€requiredÏelement€under€the€T.C.P.A.€œwhich›€had€not€been€plead;€(3)€that€the€unjust€enrichmentÏclaim€was€invalid€since€the€basis€of€the€partiesðð€relationship€was€a€written€contract;€(4)Ïthat€the€conspiracy€claim€could€not€stand€because€appellant€had€not€alleged€anyÏunlawful€or€tortious€act.€€Appellant€œhas€appealed›€the€dismissal€of€the€T.C.P.A.€andÏconspiracy€claims,€but€has€not€appealed€the€dismissal€of€the€unjust€enrichment€claim.Ìà 4 àà Œ à€€Under€T.R.C.P.€ðð12.02(6),€we€are€required€to€construe€the€complaintÏliberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€taking€all€allegations€as€true.€€òòSullivant€v.€AmericanaÐ +$$ ÐHomes,€Inc.,€óó605€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.App.€1980).€€A€complaint€should€not€beÐ -&& Ðdismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€unless€it€appears€beyond€doubt€that€the€plaintiffÏcan€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€the€claim€that€would€entitle€him€or€her€to€relief.ÏòòId.óó€œÐ 3,, Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€appellee€argues€that€T.C.P.A.€is€not€applicable€in€this€case.€€TheÏappellee€contends€that€its€conduct€is€permitted€by€the€federal€Truth€in€Lending€ActÏ(ð ðT.I.L.A.ðð),€and€that€the€T.C.P.A.,€by€its€own€terms,€does€not€apply.€The€T.C.P.A.Ð 922 Ðdoes€not€apply€to€ð ð[a]cts€or€transactions€required€or€specifically€authorized€under€theÏlaws€administered€by,€or€rules€and€regulations€promulgated€by,€any€regulatory€bodiesÏor€officers€acting€under€the€authority€of€this€state€or€of€the€United€States.ðð€€T.C.A.€ððÏ47„18„111(a)(1).Ìà 4 àà Œ àAppellee€insists€that€since€the€disclosure€portions€of€the€appellantððs€salesÏcontract€are€governed€by€the€T.I.L.A.,€failure€to€disclose€€ð ðdealer€reserveðð€is€notÏactionable.€€This€argument€fails€for€two€reasons.€€First,€courts€have€generallyÏconstrued€the€preemptive€scope€of€the€T.I.L.A€narrowly.€€The€T.I.L.A.ððs€ownÏpreemptive€provisions€are€narrowly€worded€and€were€intended€ð ðto€extend€only€toÏspecific€state€disclosure€requirements,€in€the€interest€of€preserving€uniform€methods€ofÏdisclosure.ðð€òòHeastie€v.€Community€Bankóó,€690€F.Supp.€716,€720€(N.D.€Ill.,€1988);€€òòSeeÐ h` Ðalso€óó17€Am.Jur.2d€òòConsumer€Protection€óóðð€259€(1990).€€Second,€the€appellant€does€notÐ p!h Ðcontend€that€the€appellee€failed€to€comply€with€the€T.I.L.A.€€Rather,€he€alleges€that€theÏappellee€engaged€in€a€scheme€to€mislead€consumers€concerning€the€true€nature€of€theirÏfinancing.€€In€òòHeastie,óó€the€Court€considered€language€under€the€Illinois€ConsumerÐ ˆ'€  ÐFraud€Act€identical€to€the€T.C.P.A.ððs€exclusionary€provision€and€concluded€thatÏcompliance€with€the€T.I.L.A.€ð ðshould€not€be€a€complete€defense€to€allegations€ofÏfraudulent€schemes.ðð€òòId.óó€at€721.€€This€result€is€consistent€with€a€privately€reported›Ð  -˜&& Ðdecision€of€this€Court,€holding€that€a€dealerððs€failure€to€disclose€ð ðdealer€reserveðð€wasÏactionable€when€the€dealer€engaged€in€a€pattern€of€deceptive€conduct.€€òòSee€Adkinson€v.Ð °1¨** ÐHarpeth€Ford„Mercury,€Inc.óó,€1991€WL€17177€(Tenn.App.).€€€Thus,€appelleeððs€claimsÐ ¸3°,, Ðof€compliance€with€the€T.I.L.A.€are€not€dispositive.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Trial€Court€determined€that€ð ð[a]s€to€any€averment€of€fraud,€theÐ È7À00 Ðcomplaint€must€be€dismissed€for€the€plaintiffððs€[appellantððs]€failure€to€state€withÏparticularity€as€required€by€Rule€9.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ðð€€ÏRule€9.02€requires€that€the€circumstances€constituting€fraud€must€be€plead€withÏparticularity.€€The€parties€dispute€whether€this€requirement€applies€to€claims€under€theÏT.C.P.A.€€This€Court€has€applied€Rule€9.02€to€claims€under€the€T.C.P.A.€òòHumphries€v.Ð (  ÐWest€End€Terrace,€Inc.óó,€795€S.W.2d€128€(Tenn.App.€1990).€Other€jurisdictions€haveÐ 0(  Ðalso€required€that€claims€under€state€consumer€protection€acts€be€plead€withÏspecificity.€€œòòSee€e.g.,€Connick›€v.€Suzuki€Motor€Co.óó,€675€N.E.2d€584€(Ill.€1996).€Thus,Ð @8 Ðthe€Amended€Complaint€must€be€scrutinized€in€light€of€these€requirements.€€DespiteÏRule€9.02's€particularity€requirements,€we€must€determine€the€œsufficiency›€of€œtheÏclaims›€in€light€of€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€8.01's€liberal€pleading€standards.€òòDobbs€v.€Guentheróó,Ð XP Ð846€S.W.2d€270€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Amended€Complaint€essentially€alleges€that€the€appellee€andÏvarious€Ford€dealers€violated€the€T.C.P.A.€by€misleading€consumers€andÏmisrepresenting€to€them€the€practice€of€ð ðdealer€reserve.ðð€€Although€the€AmendedÏComplaint€alleges€misrepresentations€by€the€Ford€dealer,€it€lists€two€principal€actionsÏby€the€appellee€that€could€link€it€to€the€dealerððs€conduct€or€otherwise€violate€theÏT.C.P.A.€€First,€the€Amended€Complaint€states€that€the€appellee€has€ð ðquoted€itsÏfinancing€rates€in€the€national€media€and€press.ðð€According€to€the€AmendedÏComplaint,€the€effect€of€this€advertising€is€to€indicate€to€consumers€that€these€ratesÏð ðare€fixed€and€not€variable€and€that€each€Ford€Motor€Company€.€.€.€dealer€will€makeÏavailable€to€consumers€precisely€those€rates€which€Ford€Motor€Credit€quotes.ðð€ÏNowhere€in€the€Amended€Complaint,€however,€does€the€appellant€allege€that€he€everÏsaw€or€heard€any€of€these€advertisements.€€Regardless€of€whether€reliance€is€aÏrequired€element€under€the€T.C.P.A.,€plaintiffs€must€at€least€allege€that€they€wereÐ È7À00 Ðexposed€to€the€offensive€conduct.€€Thus,€the€Amended€Complaint€fails€to€state€a€causeÏof€action€for€this€œalleged€violation.›Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Amended€Complaint€also€states€that€the€appellee€ð ðthrough€its€dealerÏmanuals€and€other€policies€and€procedures,€instructs€its€dealers€to€inform€customersÏthat€the€quoted€Ford€Motor€Credit€rates€are€fixed€and€non„negotiable.ðð€€This€claimÏalso€fails€to€allege€any€actionable€conduct€by€the€appellee.€€Although€not€entirelyÏclear,€the€phrase€ð ðquoted€Ford€Motor€Credit€ratesðð€presumably€refers€to€the€same€retailÏrates€allegedly€quoted€by€the€appellee€in€its€advertisements.€€Although€the€term€couldÏarguably€mean€the€final€rate€quoted€to€the€customer€by€the€dealer,€that€meaning€wouldÏbe€inconsistent€with€language€in€the€section€of€the€Amended€Complaint€describing€theÏappelleeððs€advertising.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àWhether€the€appelleeððs€rates€are€negotiable€does€not€affect€the€practiceÏof€ð ðdealer€reserve.ðð€€According€to€the€Amended€Complaint,€once€the€appellee€quotesÏthe€fixed€rate,€the€dealer€adds€any€additional€percentage.€€Thus,€there€is€nothing€unfairÏor€deceptive€about€the€appellee€ð ðfixingðð€its€quoted€rates.€€In€fact,€if€the€appelleeÏinstructs€dealers€to€inform€customers€that€the€appelleeððs€rates€are€fixed€and€non„¼negotiable,€€this€instruction€would€better€inform€customers€about€the€practice€of€dealerÏreserve.€€Customers€would€realize€that€the€final€rate€quoted€by€the€dealer€was€higherÏthan€the€appelleeððs€rate.€€Although€the€Amended€Complaint€alleges€that€the€dealers€doÏnot€tell€customers€about€the€disparity€in€financing,€it€does€not€recite€any€actions€thatÏcould€render€the€appellee€liable€for€this€alleged€misrepresentation€or€nondisclosure.€ÏThus,€the€allegation€fails€to€state€a€claim€under€the€T.C.P.A.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€remainder€of€the€conduct€recited€in€the€Amended€Complaint€withÏappropriate€specificity€refers€to€actions€allegedly€taken€by€the€Ford€dealer.€€The€dealerÏis€not€a€party€in€this€case€and€the€Amended€Complaint€does€not€contend€that€theÐ È7À00 Ðappellee€should€be€liable€for€the€dealerððs€individual€conduct.€€Thus,€the€complaint€failsÏto€state€a€claim€against€the€appellee€for€T.C.P.A.€violations.€€It€therefore€fails€to€allegeÏa€conspiracy€to€violate€the€T.C.P.A.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€hold€that€the€Trial€Court€correctly€dismissed€the€AmendedÏComplaint,€but€œwe€pretermit€the›€issue€of€whether€reliance€is€a€required€element€underÏthe€œT.C.P.A.€because€we€conclude€the€complaint€does€not€otherwise€state€a€cause€ofÏaction.›€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€with€costÏof€the€appeal€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÐ XP Ðóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð \T Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.Ì