FantomWorks Lawsuit: Owens v. DRS and Virginia Supreme Court

The main FantomWorks lawsuit is Owens v. DRS Automotive Fantomworks, Inc., a Virginia case brought by customers who accused the Norfolk restoration shop of inflating the price of a donor car during a 1960 Ford Thunderbird project. FantomWorks won at trial, and on October 31, 2014, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed that judgment on every claim.¹

What the Customers Alleged

Richard L. Owens, Sr. and Cynthia M. Owens hired FantomWorks in the early 2010s to restore a 1960 Ford Thunderbird they had bought for $11,500. There was no written contract. The parties agreed the job would cost no more than roughly $40,000 and that FantomWorks would apply a 25 percent markup on all parts. The Owenses paid a $15,000 deposit and later a second $15,000.¹

The fight was about a single line item. Daniel Short, the shop’s founder, bought a 2001 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor as a donor car for the engine and parts. FantomWorks billed the Owenses $7,500 for it: a $6,000 purchase price plus the 25 percent markup. The Owenses believed the real purchase price was closer to $2,000, based on a Craigslist advertisement they had seen for the vehicle, and they accused Short of pocketing the difference.¹

Cynthia Owens, an attorney, sent a demand letter for detailed cost documentation. Short suspended the work and told the Owenses to collect their vehicles. They sued in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, alleging breach of contract, common law fraud, violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), and detinue.²

How the Trial Came Out

The case went to a three-day jury trial (Civil Docket No. CL 12-7354). The Owenses called Short and Lieutenant Alexander Theiss, the original seller of the donor car, as their own witnesses. Both testified that the sale price was $6,000, and their testimony was backed by a bill of sale and a Florida certificate of title showing the same figure.¹

The trial judge struck the Owenses’ evidence on the fraud and consumer protection counts, finding they had not shown credible evidence of deception. The breach of contract claim went to the jury, which returned a verdict for FantomWorks with no damages. The detinue count was dismissed once the parties agreed on the return of the vehicles.¹

FantomWorks and Short filed a defamation counterclaim, alleging the Owenses told a third party that Short’s business practices were “illegal,” “criminal,” and “shady,” and that a vehicle was “likely stolen.” Judge Charles E. Poston dismissed it on June 10, 2013. The pleading failed to set out the exact words spoken, as Virginia law requires, and the judge added that words like “shady,” “overcharged,” and “liar” are subjective opinion rather than verifiable fact.³

The Supreme Court of Virginia Ruling

The Owenses appealed the dismissal of the fraud and VCPA claims. The Supreme Court of Virginia took the case (Record No. 140171) and, on October 31, 2014, affirmed the judgment below.¹

The reasoning turned on who called the witnesses. Because the Owenses had put Short and Theiss on the stand themselves, they were bound by the uncontradicted testimony that the donor car cost $6,000. Their competing $2,000 theory rested on an old Craigslist listing, which the court described as “suspicion based entirely on conjecture.” Without evidence contradicting their own witnesses, they could not establish the misrepresentation that both fraud and VCPA claims require.¹

The court also held that the VCPA claim failed for a second reason: the Owenses had not proven reliance on the alleged misrepresentation or resulting damages, both of which a private plaintiff must show under the statute.¹

Justice Russell dissented. He argued that circumstantial evidence, including Short’s response to a $2,000 advertisement for the same car shortly before he acquired it, was enough to let a jury weigh the credibility of the $6,000 testimony.¹

Why the Case Matters for Virginia Consumers

The Virginia Attorney General’s office filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the Owenses on one legal question: whether a VCPA claim requires the same proof as common law fraud. The Commonwealth argued it does not, saying the VCPA is remedial legislation and that equating it with fraud would drain parts of the statute of meaning.⁴

The Supreme Court largely accepted that framework. It stated that the VCPA “extends considerably beyond fraud” and does not require proof that a misrepresentation was made knowingly or with intent to deceive. Even so, the court held that a consumer bringing a private VCPA claim must still prove reliance on the seller’s conduct and actual damages tied to it. The takeaway for consumers: Virginia’s statute lowers the bar on proving a seller’s state of mind, but the causal link between the deceptive act and the financial loss still has to be shown.¹⁴

Other Complaints Against FantomWorks

The Owens case is the main reported lawsuit involving FantomWorks. Other complaints from customers and viewers of the shop’s MotorTrend series exist but have not produced reported court decisions.

One customer in Flat Rock, North Carolina, reported paying more than $100,000 for a full restoration of a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air and receiving the car in what the customer called “terrible shape,” with work “nothing like it was supposed to be done.” The customer had not filed suit at the time and was advised to look at potential breach of contract or false advertising theories.⁵

Automotive forums have hosted informal discussions from viewers and self-described customers raising concerns about labor charges, cost overruns against original estimates, and restoration quality some described as cosmetic rather than thorough. FantomWorks is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau, and its BBB profile carries no rating due to insufficient information.⁶

1
Findlaw. Owens v. DRS Automotive Fantomworks, Inc.
2
vLex. Owens v. DRS Auto. Fantomworks, Inc., 288 Va. 489
3
CaseMine. Owens v. DRS Automotive Fantomworks, Inc., CL 12-7354
4
Virginia Office of the Attorney General. Amicus Curiae Brief, Owens v. DRS Automotive Fantomworks
5
JustAnswer. Customer Inquiry Regarding 1957 Chevy Bel-Air Restoration
6
Better Business Bureau. FantomWorks BBB Business Profile