8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 1/27
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OFTHE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, INAND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY,FLORIDA
RICHARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO:
SARASOTA 500, LLC, a Florida Limited LiabilityCompany d/b/a SARASOTA FORD, VERNONG. BUCHANAN and BUCHANAN ENTERPRISES,
Defendants. /
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, RICHARD THOMAS, sues the Defendants, SARASOTA FORD,
BUCHANAN ENTERPRISES and VERNON G. BUCHANAN and states:
1. This is a cause of action for damages within the jurisdiction of the court.
2. The Plaintiff is a resident of Sanford, Florida and over the age of 21 and
otherwise sui juris.
3. The Defendant, Vernon G. Buchanan (“Buchanan”) is a resident of Long
Boat Key, Sarasota County, Florida over the age of 21 and otherwise sui juris.
4. The Defendant, Sarasota 500 is a Buchanan Enterprise Company (“BE”)
authorized to do business and doing business at 707 South Washington Boulevard,
Sarasota, Florida.
5. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant,
Sarasota 500 as the Director or Fixed Operations.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 2/27
2
6. As the Director of Fixed Operations, Plaintiff was responsible for the parts
department, service department and body shop profitability. The rental car manager
also reported to Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff worked directly under Buchanan and Ernie Parisi (“Parisi”),
the stores General Manager (“GM”).
8. The Plaintiff was hired as fixed operations director to make the parts,
service and body shops profitable.
9. When Plaintiff was hired, the customer satisfaction index (“CSI”) for those
operations was the worst in the region.
10. The Plaintiff was proud of his ability to turn the operation from the worst in
the region in two years to make it the best in the region and win the President’s Award.
11. He was very proud of the manner in which the customers were treated by
the service department under his direction.
CATTLEMAN PROPERTY
12. While working at the dealership, the Plaintiff was taken into the confidence
of Buchanan and given an opportunity to participate in a business deal with Buchanan.
13. Buchanan told him that if he could put the deal together that he would take
care of him and that that would be his future.
14. He was told he could use the money to become a partner in his own store
or not, that would be the Plaintiff’s choice.
15. Plaintiff would be able to decide when that would be as well.
16. Plaintiff performed his part of the agreement, got everything completed
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 3/27
3
and then Buchanan renegged on his promise.
17. The subject property was a piece of property that the body shop had been
relocated to on Cattleman Road in Sarasota, Florida.
18. The body shop was in an existing building on the property which Sarasota
500 converted to meet their body shop needs.
19. Buchanan wanted to own the property, but the negotiations had fallen
through and there was an absolute inability of Buchanan or his designee and attorney,
John Tosch (“Tosch”) to communicate with the owner, Charles Miller (“Miller”).
20. When Plaintiff was hired at Sarasota 500 they had been attempting to
make the purchase from Mr. Miller for some time. Everything had gone wrong.
21. Miller had been dealing with Tosch.
22. Tosch and Miller reached such a strong personality conflict that Miller had
decided he would not sell the property to Buchanan.
23. When they didn’t exercise the option to purchase in a timely manner, Mr.
Miller had had all he could stand, exercised his right to have them vacate the premises
and told Buchanan to leave.
24. Two weeks after the Plaintiff was hired the problems concerning
negotiations between Sarasota Ford and Charles Miller were brought to him.
25. They had a significant investment in the property at that point and the
Plaintiff was called upon to smooth things over to salvage the transaction.
26. It was ironic that they were still attempting to finish the construction that
they were doing on the property which was half done and they were trying to do
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 4/27
4
business out of it, the end of the lease had come and Mr. Miller was telling them to get
out and they were still trying to get people to finish what they had paid them to do in
connection with the construction.
27. At that point the Plaintiff went to meet with Mr. Miller to see if he could
salvage the purchase option of the property.
28. The Plaintiff called every vendor and Mr. Miller, had a meeting at the
property to address everybody’s concerns, came up with a plan to solve them, executed
the plan, got the construction done, got the business operating and then addressed the
concerns of Mr. Miller.
29. Miller had told the Plaintiff and Buchanan in a meeting that he would not
deal with Tosch but that he would deal with Plaintiff and would continue to go forward as
long as he did not have to deal with Mr. Tosch and could deal with the Plaintiff.
30. Buchanan promised the Plaintiff that he would give him 25% of the value
of the business above $1.2 million if he could salvage the deal.
31. Plaintiff succeeded in turning Miller around, getting the transaction
completed and getting the building 90% remodeled.
32. The dealership, through a sequence of leases, took over more and more
square footage of the property and put a $50,000 deposit which was non-refundable
that went to the seller.
33. Mr. Miller did not want to pay capital gains so the deal was structured so
that it could take into consideration Mr. Miller’s tax consequences.
34. It consisted in a series of leases so that as his leases ran out, Sarasota
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 5/27
5
500 would take over additional square footage and eventually would have control over
the entire facility and after they took over the last square footage they would give him a
$50,000 non-refundable deposit to execute a purchase of the property or Miller had the
option to finance it himself.
35. These leases were structured by the Plaintiff and Charles Miller under the
direction of Buchanan.
36. They had agreed upon the ultimate purchase price subject to the leases.
THE BUCHANAN AGREEMENT
37. The agreement between Plaintiff and Buchanan was memorialized by a
written agreement.
38. Plaintiff was not able to find his copy of the agreement and requested
Tosch to furnish him with a copy of the agreement.
39. The copy Tosch furnished Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 1.
40. The Plaintiff typed Exhibit 1 on January 31, 2001, after he had been taken
to lunch by Buchanan and told that this is what Buchanan wanted him to do to tie him to
the store so that he wouldn’t leave and he would stay with the corporation.
41. Buchanan stated, “I want to do this for you as additional part of your
compensation to tie you to the store with golden handcuffs” so that the Plaintiff wouldn’t
accept or entertain any additional offers of employment from his competitors.
42. As can be seen, the document originally stated: “Tenure, Began for this
purpose 8/23/99 and will concluded 8/23/09. Vesting at 10% per year on an annual
basis.”
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 6/27
6
43. At the time that the document was executed that provision was stricken
through and the Defendant, Buchanan inserted the phrase, “Richard has to be
employed.”
44. Upon receipt of the document the Plaintiff noticed that Vern Buchanan had
made two additional changes to the document after it was signed and initialed by
Plaintiff.
45. Change One. Buchanan struck out the word “owned” 25% and substituted
“Will have option to buy” and initialed that. Plaintiff never saw, initialed or agreed to this
change.
46. Change Two. Buchanan also made a notation “For purchase of” and then
some word that is illegible. Neither Buchanan nor Plaintiff initialed this change. Plaintiff
never saw it or agreed to it.
47. Neither of these later changes is initialed by the plaintiff.
48. At the time that Plaintiff was terminated by the dealership he asked
Buchanan about the provision that required him to be employed by the dealership and
was told that since he did not quit but was terminated it would not affect his rights to the
25% under the agreement. Buchanan confirmed that he did not have to be employed by
Sarasota 500 notwithstanding the agreed upon revision.
49. When Buchanan inserted this provision he explained it to Plaintiff as being
“his golden handcuffs” to keep the Plaintiff in his employ and stated that that was the
reason he wanted that provision in there.
50. In reliance on that explanation, Plaintiff initialed the change representing
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 7/27
7
that he could not leave for another job.
51. The intent of the parties at the time it was executed being that Vern
Buchanan wanted the Plaintiff to continue in Buchanan’s employ and this would provide
an incentive for him to remain in his employ. However, since he was terminated by
Buchanan and it would be impossible for him to continue in his employ, Buchanan
agreed that it would be unreasonable and unfair to enforce that provision since it failed
of its essential purpose which was for Buchanan to have “golden handcuffs” on the
Plaintiff to keep him in his employ.
52. When Plaintiff was terminated involuntarily by Buchanan, he asked
Defendant Buchanan about that provision and Buchanan said not to worry and that he
wasn’t going to enforce it since he was terminated rather than quitting of his own
volition.
MEETINGS
53. With respect to Buchanan’s involvement in the business, the Plaintiff was
located at Sarasota Ford which was the flagship store where Buchanan’s office was
located.
54. Buchanan was at the meetings that happened in that office and had day to
day knowledge of what was going on in that store.
55. Plaintiff and Buchanan also attended various meetings involving all of the
dealerships. At these meetings, the attendees would discuss the direction of the
business, ways of doing business, and a lot of matters that were really out of the scope
of the Plaintiff’s position at the dealership.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 8/27
8
56. The primary focus of these meetings was how to increase production,
meet production goals, provide incentives and increase profitability.
57. There were monthly meetings where the financial statement was gone
over, the balance book of the store, who did what and how other dealerships were
doing.
58. The Plaintiff also had conversations with Buchanan and meetings with
Buchanan and others, sometimes weekly, sometimes bi-weekly but there was always
the monthly review.
59. Plaintiff paid particular attention to his scope of the business but each
department head was there and a review was made by each department.
60. Although Buchanan was not at every one of the meetings, he was at the
majority of the meetings and when he was there he was an active participant in the
meetings.
61. Tosch was also at these monthly meetings two-thirds of the time.
62. For Buchanan to have the success that he’s had in the business he had
knowledge of not only what was going on in the stores but in all of his business
undertakings and in fact would compare the results of each of the stores at the
meetings.
63. They had the P&L statements from all the different stores at the meetings
and the statistics for the operations at the different stores at their meetings and
Buchanan evidenced an active working knowledge of what was going on at all of the
stores.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 9/27
9
64. At the meetings, they discussed what worked and what didn’t work from
store to store.
65. The Sarasota 500 store General Manager was always present at these
meetings as were general managers from other stores from time to time.
66. They also had what were referred to as group meetings when all of the
general managers would come in and go over the entire operation of the corporation
and how everybody was doing.
67. Plaintiff did not attend all of these meetings but he attended some of them.
68. They were held on a monthly basis with all the partners.
69. From time to time, these meetings were held at different locations.
70. He was present at these meetings from time to time to review fixed
operations.
71. The same issues were discussed at these meetings involving charge
backs, kick backs, possible irregularities and people that worked consumer complaints
and so forth, as well as the P&L and employee problems.
72. The preload issue was discussed with all of the general managers at one
time or another with Buchanan.
PRELOADING
73. One of the issues addressed at these meetings that affected Plaintiff’s
area was preloading cars.
74. The purpose of preloading of the cars was to make additional gross.
75. At the time of the pre-delivery inspection various products and accessories
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 10/27
10
were pre-loaded creating additional gross for each unit which made the prices very
healthy.
76. It also made additional gross for the Plaintiff’s department.77. Buchanan was present at discussions concerning these preloads and wasactive in putting the plan together.
78. As long as the Plaintiff was there that practice was never changed.79. There was discussion about, “How could we charge it when they could go
down the street and buy it for less?” The response was, “We’re going to charge it” eventhough it was higher and more than the competition was charging.
80. Some of the preloads were in an addendum on the window with the totalprice of those particular preloads, but not broken out individually by item.
81. It was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to do the work to get the product on thevehicle inventory.
82. The addendum was presented in such a way that it was not clear whetherthe product came from the factory or came from Buchanan.83. Many of the addendum stickers were done as packages which did not
include the individual items or costs so the consumer could have no way of knowingwhat he is paying for each item.
84. The addendum raised the retail selling price of the car.85. This was also Buchanan’s way of diverting profit from the sales
department commissioned employees to the service and parts department.86. The way it was structured was so that it would diminish the gross on which
the sales employees were paid, to the detriment of the salesmen. This way thedealership could retain more profit and avoid having to pay salesmen commissions.
87. Some products such as paint sealant, fabric guard, ETCH, etc. were sentout for sublet to vendors. This subletting was also discussed at these meetings.
88. The outside vendor was discussed and approved by Buchanan whoordered the outside vendor to put the products on the cars and who made the decisionon how much they would be charged per car.
89. The other things that were put on the car would be specialty wheels andtires, bug shields and the detailing during the pre-delivery inspection.
90. Plaintiff sees no problem with making a profit, however, the issue was howthe items were costed at the dealership.
91. They were costed at truckload purchase price to the dealership. If theywere put into inventory at that price there would be more gross profit and the salesmanwould be paid on that higher profit. However, they were costed at an artificially highfigure to create an inventory cost of more than their actual cost, skewing the costs insuch a way that the actual gross profit upon which the salesmen were paid was muchless than it would have been without the artificially inflated cost.
92. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, the salesmen did not know what the real costwas and did not know what the real charge to the car was.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 11/27
11
93. It was also presented to consumers in such a way that either they boughtthe car as equipped or they didn’t buy it, but that would be their only choice.
94. So that it’s clear, there were three cost items involved. One would be thecost to the dealership, the actual cost of the product to the dealership. Two would be
the inflated costs placed on the product in inventory. Three would be the cost to theconsumer which would have the additional profit above the inflated inventory cost.95. They would be costed out as if they were being purchased on an
individual basis when, in fact, they were either purchased on a palate or truck load basisat a considerable discount.
96. Buchanan would still stick to the higher individual cost to inflate theinventory cost to avoid paying commission on the real profit to the dealership.
97. On the subleted items they were billed directly through the office. Theywere not billed through the service department and the Plaintiff never saw them so hedoesn’t know what the real cost of those products were or how much money wasdiverted.
98. Plaintiff was paid a straight salary and not caught up in the game of tryingto figure out what the true profit was on any transaction.99. For example, it was clear that the salesmen did not know what was
included in their pack.100. I was asked repeatedly by salesmen what was included and I directed
them to their sales manager.101. By transferring the additional profit to the parts department where the
scale is much smaller, the dealer creates more profit to the dealership and lesscommission to the salesmen.
102. The additional money would be taken as profit or inventory reduction orput into other income.
103. At the time of predelivery inspection, every truck got a bed liner.104. The bed liner repair order was written, billed out and charged.105. There were other packages handled the same way, such as paint sealant,
fabric guard, tires, wheels, stripes, bug guards, floor mats, leather interior.
106. In some cases they were not put on the vehicle, but were still charged to
the vehicle.
107. The Plaintiff brought it to the attention of top management, including
Buchanan, that they were paying too much to the private vendors to install aftermarket
items.
108. He was told in response that it was a business decision, that they were
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 12/27
12
their vendors and those were their costs.
109. Plaintiff believes the only reason they would tolerate such excessive
prices and diverting profits would be because they were getting kick backs from those
vendors. 110. Buchanan is too good of a businessman to pay more than the
vendors were worth. It would only make sense if the vendors were charging excessive
prices to reduce the commissionable gross and so Buchanan could receive an
additional profit by way of a kick back and not have to pay the salesmen.
CHARGEBACKS
111. Charge backs from lenders were always a subject of discussion at every
meeting.
112. Some of the charge backs were because cars had to be bought back.
113. Although this was not in the scope of Plaintiff’s employment, these
conversations occurred in his presence and he heard these conversations repeatedly.
114. Buchanan had those communications concerning the charge backs from
lenders and understood when the reasons for the charge backs were explained.
115. Charge backs could be as a result of a number of things: False
applications (that is fraudulent applications which were discovered when they were
checked by the lender); Power booking on cars (that is, items indicated as being on cars
which were not on cars so that the cars qualified for higher loans); falsification of other
documents that resulted in the bank calling the loan; among others.
116. During the meetings it was suggested that for the appraisal to be done
accurately that when a used car comes in that they create a booking sheet which would
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 13/27
13
list all of the options on the car and all you had to do was pull the computer screen to
see what had been added.
117. This was objected to by the Sales Managers because it would eliminate
the ability of the sales department to power book the cars and get over advances on
them.
118. Ultimately, Tosch and Buchanan decided to not allow the service
department to do book out sheets to show what was really on the cars.
119. The decision was left to the office and sales management to take care of
booking out all cars rather than the service department during part of the pre-delivery
inspection.
120. It was clear that giving it to the service department would eliminate
powerbooking and the charge back problem created by powerbooking.
121. Nonetheless, Buchanan and Tosch made the conscious decision to not do
it that way.
122. The Plaintiff repeatedly questioned these decisions and the motivation
behind these types of decisions.
123. He did not gain in popularity by his questioning.
BAD PRACTICES
124. The Plaintiff also made it clear that he didn’t want to be involved in things
that weren’t as they should be or illegal.
125. As long as the deal got done Buchanan didn’t really express any concern
as to how it was done.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 14/27
14
126. This attitude was made apparent to Plaintiff time after time after time.
ILLEGAL ALIENS
127. When Plaintiff started his employment at Sarasota Ford there was a group
of 8 illegal aliens there.
128. Buchanan had imported them to do work on his house, specifically the
rock work and the floors.
129. He provided them sleeping quarters in the office beside the store.
130. There was a conversation about a political appointment of Buchanan to a
possible ambassadorship and the illegal aliens working at the store on payroll and
getting rid of the illegals immediately so he could distance himself from the issue.
131. This was done in a private conversation. He happened to be in the office
with Tosch when the conversation took place between Tosch and Buchanan. The
individual’s name was Tony.
132. The conversation was to the effect, “We need to get rid of Tony and we
need to do it now. I need to be distanced from any of the people that don’t have a green
card.”
133. The subject of the illegal aliens was brought up during the course of one of
the meetings. They paid close attention to the issue to make sure that everyone had to
have a social security card or a green card and that they had a specific employee at
Sarasota Ford who had to be released who had been a laborer in construction of the
primary residence of Buchanan and after that construction was working at the store, had
been working at the store and had actually been staying at the store but was released
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 15/27
15
because he didn’t have a green card.
134. He had been employed at the dealership for some time at the time that he
was fired.
135. The individual, Tony, was receiving a payroll check from Sarasota Ford.
He was fired by Paul Doherty who thought enough of him and his outstanding working
ability that he cried when he had to fire him.
OFF SITE STORAGE
136. Many documents were kept off site at a storage facility at a farm owned by
Mr. Buchanan’s brother.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
137. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, the Defendant Sarasota 500
made a contribution of $1,000 to G. W. Bush’s campaign in the Plaintiff’s name. He got
a nice signed picture from George Bush.
138. His pay check was docked $1,000 and made up in the next pay check.
139. The $1,000 contribution to G.W. Bush’s campaign was taken from his
check and then added back to his check later.
140. It was his understanding that that was happening with all the managers.
141. Also, any time an official needed a vehicle for campaign purposes or
Buchanan needed a vehicle for campaign purposes he got it.
142. Vehicles were taken out of inventory for use in campaigns.
143. When the vehicles were taken out overnight and brought back he would
find campaign literature in the vehicles when he cleaned them up, along with billboards
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 16/27
16
and posters and then he would have to have his people detail them and get them ready
for the customers.
144. He would store the campaign materials at the dealership and another
vehicle would go out with all the campaign materials in it.
145. The dealership was never paid for the use of these vehicles.
TAG AND TITLE ISSUE
146. Customers were charged $200 for title, tags and so forth which only cost
$160.
147. The $40 extra did not go back to the customer.
148. The Plaintiff questioned that in a meeting and said that they shouldn’t do
this. His request was ignored.
TERMINATION
149. Plaintiff was terminated when he disclosed to Buchanan that his wife had
been diagnosed with a brain tumor.
150. The Plaintiff’s wife’s diagnosis of the brain tumor came around the time
that the estimates and renewal of insurance and because of the changes and accruals
that would have been set up for her health, they put such a high dollar amount on the
accrual that it was not cost effective to keep the Plaintiff. Within 90 days of that he was
gone.
151. Plaintiff overheard Buchanan expressing his concern that her medical
condition could affect the company’s insurance costs in a discussion about insurance
costs.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 17/27
17
152. The Plaintiff was terminated in January of 2004.
153. The deal, the ultimate purchase of the Cattleman property, was
consummated within 90 days after the Plaintiff was terminated.
154. The Plaintiff was terminated while Buchanan was out of town.
155. When Buchanan got back into town and he found out Plaintiff was fired he
said, “I was out of town, don’t worry about it, we’ll get it worked out.”
156. Plaintiff later called Buchanan on the phone and set up an appointment to
meet with him, the “first meeting.”
157. At that first meeting, Plaintiff asked Buchanan if the Cattleman Property
Agreement was still in force and effect and Buchanan told him that it was.
158. Buchanan offered Plaintiff an opportunity to continue working for him for
an additional 6 months as fixed operations officer for all of the dealerships for $10,000
per month but without any insurance benefits.
159. He wouldn’t be an employee of Sarasota 500, he would be a consultant.
160. After this first meeting Plaintiff told Buchanan that he would get back to
him.
161. Plaintiff then set up was a second meeting where he declined Buchanan’s
offer.
162. Buchanan then offered the Plaintiff $9,000 in severance if he would sign a
complete release of any and all claims.
163. Plaintiff asked Buchanan if the release agreement would include the
Cattleman’s agreement and Buchanan said it would.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 18/27
18
164. Plaintiff declined this offer.
165. Plaintiff refused to sign any release and, therefore, did not receive the
$9,000 or the 25% value of the property above $1.2 million.
166. While Plaintiff was employed by Suncoast there were 2 other employees
Plaintiff knows of who were let go because of health issues.
167. A service writer hurt his knee and the comment was, “This is a problem. I
think he’s a fake. Get rid of him.”
168. There was technician that got something in his eye working and the
comment was, “He’s careless. This is the second time. He needs to go.”
169. Neither of these employees were counseled before being terminated and
they were ordered terminated by Tosch.
170. They were told they were being replaced because the dealership was
going a different direction and making changes.
171. The Plaintiff knows for certain that they were definitely terminated for
health issues.
172. The period of time was 2000 - 2001.
173. The Plaintiff had been through the NADA (National Automobile Dealer
Association) School which gave him enough information to ask questions about
wrongdoings he witnessed.
174. He asked a lot of questions and was told, “It is what it is. Leave it alone.
Go do your job.”
175. Although Plaintiff was selling more products, doing more service work,
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 19/27
19
aftermarket items were thriving, putting products on virtually every car, his P&L profits
weren’t reflecting a big increase.
176. This is one of the things that the Plaintiff was questioning. Although the
way the Plaintiff was paid, it did not affect his pay plan and he was told to go do what he
does, it was affecting the parts managers and other who were on commissions.
177. The Plaintiff raised this issue with Buchanan himself on behalf of his
employees without a response.
178. He had been trained at that point to question the P&L statement.
179. Further, everyone wants to do more and do better.
180. The Plaintiff wanted to, quite frankly, prove his worth.
181. From his personal pride he wanted the numbers to accurately reflect how
they were doing.
182. He wanted to see that they were at a number that was consistent with
what production was.
183. In the final analysis if the numbers were what they should have been,
perhaps he would have been worth more and been able to have his salary raised as
well.
EARLY BOOKING
184. The witness also was aware that there were sales that were recorded prior
to the actual sale and delivery of the vehicle and these situations where the sale was
booked before it actually occurred, the warranty would start running.
185. It was booked to the manufacturer and the warranty would start running.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 20/27
20
186. The service writers had a problem with this issue.
187. They had people come in and would tell them a cost for performing a
repair and the customer would reply, “Well, wait a second, it’s under warranty.”
188. Then the service department would have to explain that the warranty is
time and distance and they would have a report from the manufacturer that said the
date the warranty started.
189. The customer would say, “Well that’s not when I bought it.”
190. Then they would have to go backwards and find out when the customer
actually bought their vehicle.
191. If the warranty started another time, the answer was given, “We made an
error in the office. We’ll take care of it.” which would take the form of being changed to
Ford Motor Company to change the date or in some cases the dealership would
purchase an extended warranty contract for the customer to make them happy.
192. Other times the dealer simply said, “We’ll give you some kind of discount.
Good luck with the rest.”
193. The fact is that it happened and customers were inconvenienced and lost
the benefit of their warranty.
SAFETY INSPECTIONS
194. Not every vehicle coming into the dealership went through safety
inspection but they were all charged for a safety inspection.
195. There were times the trades would come in and would be sold and put out
delivered before the Plaintiff ever saw the car even though he had the repair order and
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 21/27
21
was prepared to do the work and the inspections, the car was gone and delivered.
196. He was told to go ahead and bill it and charge it and that when they came
back in he would do it and then he would never see the people.
197. This resulted in service charges being charged against consumers and
commissionable gross that were never performed.
198. State and Federal law requires that the dealer verify whether catalytic
converters and exhausts are still on the automobiles before they can be retailed.
199. Vehicles cannot be titled without this being done.
200. The Plaintiff knows for a fact that there were many times when it was not
done and somebody in the stores had to be falsifying these admissions statements in
order to get the title issued.
REPAIRS
201. Buchanan has his own re-insurance company for extended warranties.
202. Fidelity is the administrator but Buchanan owns the company.
203. Plaintiff was frequently instructed to reduce repairs or deny claims even
though he felt that the claims were legitimate in order to keep from depleting the funds
in Buchanan’s warranty account.
204. Plaintiff was absolutely told to watch what they were spending in the
account and to hold the expenses down because that was the company’s money.
205. There were several times the Plaintiff wanted to have repairs done for
customers and paid by the warranty.
206. He was told that he could be overruled and the only one who could call
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 22/27
22
Fidelity and get that done and to authorize it would be Buchanan.
207. A general manager of the dealership was unable to override and take care
of those issues from the Plaintiff or the claims that he thought were legitimate claims.
CHANGING CONTRACTS
208. The Plaintiff recalls one incident involving a used car assistant manager,
first name Richard, that had taken the trade from a customer, taken the title to the car
and sold it and increased the amount of the loan from the customer that she had
received.
209. The customer contacted the Plaintiff as fixed operations director and said
she had a problem.
210. She came to him with her problem because she was happy with the
service she had received from him.
211. The issue she had was what she had agreed to her contract was up and
she still had payments and had been contacted about why she was behind in her
payments.
212. The Plaintiff pulled the deal and he found what was going on and turned it
over to Tosch who was to handle anything legal at the store.
213. Tosch was the first person to go to and Tosch had to communicate with
Mr. Parisi.
214. They ended up buying the woman’s car back or paying off the difference
in the loan amount and there was a court issue.
215. The Plaintiff recalls making the comment at the time, “Gee, I wonder how
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 23/27
23
many more there are like this.” because the person involved was a long time employee
and Plaintiff was sure that this wasn’t an isolated event.
216. In other words, they were getting customers and having them sign
contracts and then changing the contracts on the customer after they had signed.
217. That’s exactly what happened with this instance.
218. To this day the Plaintiff doesn’t know how many others like it are out there.
DESTROYED RECORDS
219. Although Plaintiff was not personally present when records were
destroyed, Plaintiff is aware that there were times when he tried to pull records which
could not be found. The only reason that the Plaintiff could think of that they wouldn’t be
where they were supposed to be is that they had been destroyed. The Plaintiff does
recall a legal case where they were unable to find the file for review.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
220. The Plaintiff realleges the allegations of the paragraphs 1 through 219 as
if fully set forth herein.
221. The Plaintiff has performed all conditions necessary to enforcement of the
agreement between the Plaintiff and Buchanan.
222. The Plaintiff has made the demand upon Buchanan to honor the
agreement between the parties.
223. The Defendant Buchanan has failed and refused to honor the agreement
between the parties.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 24/27
24
224. Plaintiff has been damaged by Buchanan’s refusal
225. Defendant Sarasota 500 owes the Plaintiff $9,000.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Buchanan
for damages together with pre judgment and post judgment interest and costs and
demands trial by jury of all issues triable by law by jury.
COUNT II
Unjust Enrichment
226. The Plaintiff realleges the allegations of the 1 through 219 above as set
forth herein in their entirety.
227. The Plaintiff has performed services for the Defendant Buchanan at
Buchanan’s request and with promise of compensation.
228. Defendant Buchanan has received the benefit of those services.
229. The continued retention of the benefit of the service by Buchanan without
compensating the Plaintiff is unfair and unjust.
230. Defendant Sarasota 500 owes Plaintiff $9,000.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff requests the court to enter judgment for the Plaintiff in
the amount of the benefits conveyed and conferred upon the Defendant by the Plaintiff
together with pre and post judgment interest and costs.
COUNT III
Quantum Meruit
231. The Plaintiff realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 219 above
as set forth in their entirety.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 25/27
25
232. Defendant Buchanan requested the Plaintiff to perform services for him
and agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the performance of those services.
233. The Plaintiff performed the services and the Defendant Buchanan has
refused to pay the Plaintiff for the performance of those services.
234. Defendant Sarasota 500 owes Plaintiff $9,000.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff requests the court to determine the value of the
service performed by the Plaintiff for the Defendant and to award a judgment in the
amount of said damages together with prejudgment and post judgment interest and
cost.
COUNT IV
Fraud
235. The Plaintiff realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through219 above
as if set forth in their entirety.
236. The Defendant Buchanan told the Plaintiff that he could have an interest in
the profit from the Cattleman property in order to “place golden handcuffs” on the
Plaintiff to induce the Plaintiff to remain at the dealership and not pursue any other
business or employment opportunities.
237. The Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the Defendant Buchanan’s
representation that he would have an interest in the Cattleman property.
238. The Defendant Buchanan knew the statement to be false at the time it
was made.
239. As a direct result of the Plaintiff’s reliance upon the Defendant Buchanan’s
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 26/27
26
false statement the Plaintiff sustained damages and did not receive the benefit he was
promised.
240. Defendant Sarasota 500 owes Plaintiff $9,000.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Buchanan
for damages together with pre judgment and post judgement interest and costs and
demands a trial by jury and reserves the right to amend the complaint to seek punitive
damages.
COUNT V
Misrepresentation
241. The Plaintiff realleges the allegation of paragraph 1 through 219 above as
if set forth herein in their entirety.
242. The Defendant Buchanan told the Plaintiff that he could have an interest in
the profit from the Cattleman property in order to “place golden handcuffs” on the
Plaintiff to induce the Plaintiff to remain at the dealership and not pursue any other
business or employment opportunities.
243. The Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the Defendant Buchanan’s
representation that he would have an interest in the Cattleman property.
244. The Defendant Buchanan knew the statement to be false at the time it
was made.
245. As a direct result of the Plaintiff’s reliance upon the Defendant Buchanan’s
false statement the Plaintiff sustained damages and did not receive the benefit he was
promised.
8/8/2019 Complaint Buchanan
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-buchanan 27/27
27
246. Defendant Sarasota 500 owes Plaintiff $9,000.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Buchanan
for damages together with pre judgment and post judgment interest and costs and
demands a trial by jury and reserves the right to amend the complaint to seek punitive
damages.
DATED this ____ day of August, 2008.
LYONS & FARRAR, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
__________________________ DOUGLAS S. LYONS, ESQ.Florida Bar No. 128277325 N. Calhoun StreetTallahassee, FL 32301(850) 222-8811 (telephone)(850) 222-5583 (facsimile)E-mail: [email protected]
L:\DSL\Auto Task Force\1-Clients\Florida\Thomas, Richard\Complaint 8-7-08.wpd