Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc.

Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak (plaintiffs) bought a new RV from Vacationland, Inc. (defendant) on April 19, 2014. In June, Accettura and Wozniak discovered a leaking window, and Vacationland repaired it at no charge. In July, the couple discovered a second leak during a trip that damaged the walls and caused electrical failure. The couple brought the RV back on July 14, 2014. Vacationland returned it to the manufacturer for repair, but could not give a clear estimate how long repairs would take. Accettura and Wozniak called the manufacturer, who directed them back to the dealership. On August 2, 2014, the couple verbally revoked acceptance of the RV. The manufacturer completed repairs and returned the RV to the dealership September 23, and the dealership called the couple to come pick it up. Five days later, the couple’s attorney sent Vacationland a letter revoking acceptance of the RV, but Vacationland did not return their money. The couple sued, alleging the RV had multiple continuing problems and that they had properly revoked acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Over two years later, Vacationland moved for summary judgment, arguing that the couple did not afford it a reasonable opportunity to cure, making their revocation ineffective. The couple countered that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the RV was repaired within a reasonable amount of time. The trial court granted Vacationland summary judgment, finding the couple revoked acceptance sometime before August 2, 2104, which did not give Vacationland a reasonable time to cure. The couple appealed.