DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,361 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 1 hour ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
Viramontes v. Desert Auto Plaza CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal Viramontes v. Desert Auto Plaza CA4/1 Unpublished Filed 8/24/15 Viramontes v. Desert Auto Plaza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OSCAR VIRAMONTES, D067237 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. ECU08061) v.
DESERT AUTO PLAZA, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa,
Judge. Affirmed.
Gonzalez & Garcia and Jorge C. Gonzalez for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Thomas W. Storey and Severson & Werson and John B. Sullivan, Adam H.
Hutchinson, and Mary Kate Kamka for Defendants and Appellants.
Desert Auto Plaza appeals a judgment entered in favor of Oscar Viramontes
because the Retail Installment Sale Contract for the sale of a vehicle did not disclose that
the downpayment was deferred to a later date in violation of Civil Code section 2982,
subdivision (a)(6). We affirm.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record of evidence presented to this court is by way of a settled statement
pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.137. According to the settled statement,
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
Viramontes entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract (the Contract) with Desert
Auto Plaza for the sale of a vehicle on April 4, 2013. The Contract indicated that
Viramontes made a cash downpayment of $2,000 on the date of signing. Although
Viramontes took possession of the vehicle on April 4, 2013, he made the $2,000
downpayment on April 5, 2013.
The record contains a Promissory Note, dated April 4, 2013, in which Viramontes
agreed to pay Desert Auto Plaza $2,000 on April 5, 2013.
The court entered judgment for Viramontes against Desert Auto Plaza due to the
inaccurate disclosure of the downpayment in the Contract in violation of Civil Code
section 2982, subdivision (a)(6). Pursuant to Civil Code section 2983, the court
rescinded the contract, cancelled any amounts due thereunder, and ordered Viramontes to
surrender the vehicle to Desert Auto Plaza and Desert Auto Plaza to return any money
paid pursuant to the Contract to Viramontes. Desert Auto Plaza appeals.
On appeal, Desert Auto Plaza contends that the judgment must be set aside and the
matter should be reset for trial, because there is no evidence of the Contract since the
Contract itself was never admitted into evidence. Desert Auto Plaza also maintains there
is no evidence that Desert Auto Plaza was a party to the Contract, had capacity to enter
into the Contract, consented to the Contract, or that there was sufficient consideration.
DISCUSSION The Automobile Sales Financing Act (ASFA) "contains detailed disclosure
requirements intended to protect the consuming public and includes provisions that
render a conditional sale contract unenforceable if any of those disclosure requirements
are violated, regardless of the nature of the disclosure violation or any consumer harm."
(Rojas v. Platinum Auto Grp., Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005; Civ. Code, § 2981
et seq.) Civil Code section 2982, subdivision (a)(6)(D), requires a conditional sale
contract to itemize a buyer's downpayment and specify if all or a portion of the
downpayment is "to be deferred until not later than the due date of the second regularly
scheduled installment under the contract . . . ." (Rojas v. Platinum Auto Grp., Inc., supra,
at p. 1002.) Civil Code section 2981.9 also requires "all of the agreements of the buyer
and seller with respect to the total cost and the terms of payment for the motor vehicle,
including any promissory notes or any other evidences of indebtedness" to be contained
in "a single document." (Ibid.)
The trial court properly entered judgment for Viramontes because 1) the Contract
did not state that the $2,000 cash downpayment had been deferred until April 5 and 2) the
Promissory Note, deferring the $2,000 cash downpayment to April 5, was not part of the
Contract but a separate document.
On appeal, Desert Auto Plaza does not assert that the court erred in finding that the
Contract inaccurately disclosed the terms of the downpayment, but instead appears to be
claiming that there is no contract that is subject to the ASFA. Desert Auto Plaza's
argument on appeal is two-fold: 1) there is no evidence of the Contract between the
parties and 2) there is no evidence that an enforceable contract was formed between the
The issue of whether there is evidence of the existence of the Contract is reviewed
for substantial evidence, and the issue of whether an enforceable contract was formed is
reviewed de novo. (Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009;
Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 396, 407 ["whether the
contract . . . is sufficiently definite and certain in its essential terms to give rise to a legal
obligation is a question of law"].)
1. Is There Evidence of the Contract?
Based on our review of the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence of the
Contract and the Promissory Note. "In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence,
the following basic approach is required: 'First, one must resolve all explicit conflicts in
the evidence in favor of the respondent and presume in favor of the judgment all
reasonable inferences. [Citation.] Second, one must determine whether the evidence
thus marshaled is substantial. . . . "A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence
need not be affirmed on review. [Citation.] [I]f the word 'substantial' [is to mean]
anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal
significance. Obviously the word cannot be deemed synonymous with 'any' evidence. It
must be reasonable . . . , credible, and of solid value . . . ." ' " (Valenzuela v. California
State Personnel Board (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1184-1185.)
At the beginning of the bench trial in this case, Viramontes requested that his trial
brief with the attached exhibits be submitted into evidence. Attached to the trial brief
were Exhibit A (Plaintiff's Requests for Admission) and Exhibit B (Defendants' Response
to Requests for Admission). Attached to Exhibit A were Exhibit 1, the Contract, and
Exhibit 2, the Promissory Note. The court asked defense counsel if he had any objection
to the format of the submission, and defense counsel made no objection.
Viramontes's requests for admission asked Desert Auto Plaza, among other things,
to admit that Exhibit 1 was a true and correct copy of the Contract and that Exhibit 2 was
a true and correct copy of the Promissory Note. In its response, Desert Auto Plaza
admitted that these were true and correct copies of the Contract and the Promissory Note.
We therefore conclude that there is substantial evidence of the Contract between
the parties and the Promissory Note executed as part of the sales transaction, and that
both were in fact entered into evidence at trial. Desert Auto Plaza's contentions to the
In any event, we further conclude that Desert Auto Plaza waived its right to
challenge evidence of the Contract or Promissory Note on appeal by failing to object in
the trial court (Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1249)
and admitting that the Contract and Promissory Note entered into evidence were true and
correct copies of the Contract and Promissory Note between the parties. (Cushman v.
Cushman (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 492, 498 [explaining that "one must abide by the
consequences of his own acts and cannot seek relief on appeal for errors he committed or
invited or by his conduct induced, in the trial court"].)
2. Was An Enforceable Contract Formed?
Desert Auto Plaza contends that there is no evidence that Desert Auto Plaza was a
party to the Contract, had capacity to enter into the Contract, consented to the Contract,
or that there was sufficient consideration as required by Civil Code section 1550. Civil
Code section 1550 states that the essential elements of a contract are parties capable of
contracting, their consent, a lawful object, and sufficient consideration. Because the
question of whether an enforceable contract was formed between the parties is a question
of law and here, based on undisputed facts, it may be asserted for the first time on appeal.
(Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 6.)
As a preliminary matter, we note that there is no question that Desert Auto Plaza
was a party to the Contract or the Promissory Note. The Contract names Desert Auto
Plaza as the creditor. The Promissory Note sets forth Viramontes' promise to pay Desert
Auto Plaza $2,000 on April 5, 2013. Desert Auto Plaza admitted in its response to
requests for admission that it prepared and signed the Contract and that it required
Viramontes to sign the Promissory Note as a condition of sale of the vehicle.
It is also undisputed that the Contract concerned a lawful object, a vehicle, and no
argument has been made nor evidence introduced that would indicate Desert Auto Plaza
was incapable of entering into the Contract. (Huntington Landmark Adult Community
Ass'n. v. Ross (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1021 [explaining that contentions on appeal
that are not supported by argument or citation of authority are "deemed to be without
foundation and to have been abandoned"].) Thus, we focus on whether there was consent
"Contract formation requires mutual consent, which cannot exist unless the parties
'agree upon the same thing in the same sense.' [Citation.] 'If there is no evidence
establishing a manifestation of assent to the 'same thing' by both parties, then there is no
mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.' [Citation.] 'Mutual assent is
determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations or
expressions of the parties, i.e., the reasonable meaning of their words and acts, and not
their unexpressed intentions or understandings.' " (Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc. (2006) 141
Cal.App.4th 199, 208.) "Consideration is simply the conferring of a benefit upon the
promisor or some other person or the suffering of a detriment by the promisee or some
other person." (California Sch. Employees Ass'n. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist.
(1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46, 59.)
The parties entered into a simple agreement for the sale of a vehicle, the terms of
which were memorialized in the Contract and the Promissory Note. The terms of the
agreement were specific and definite and required Viramontes to agree to the terms of
financing and pay a downpayment in exchange for possession and use of the vehicle.
The evidence reveals mutual consent to the terms of the Contract and the
Promissory Note because the parties complied with the terms of these documents. Desert
Auto Plaza gave Viramontes possession of the vehicle on April 4 and in exchange
Viramontes agreed to the terms of financing and to make a downpayment on April 5. In
accord with the Promissory Note, Viramontes made a $2,000 cash downpayment on April
5. Pursuant to the Contract, Viramontes then made monthly payments, which totaled
$10,403.38 as of November 12, 2014. The parties thus abided by the terms of their
agreement and satisfied their promises to each other, evidencing mutual consent. Since
each party conferred a benefit on the other and suffered a detriment, there was also
consideration. We therefore conclude that an enforceable contract for the sale of a
vehicle was formed between Viramontes and Desert Auto Plaza. As such, it was subject
to the ASFA and its disclosure requirements.
DISPOSITION Judgment affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
AARON, J.