Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Auto Finance

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendant improperly charged them use tax on its lease-end vehicle turn-in fee.  This decision holds that the suit was properly dismissed because plaintiffs did not first submit their claims to respondent California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and obtain its definitive ruling on the taxability question. Plaintiffs' claims were barred by their failure to exhaust administrative… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying a prevailing plaintiff attorney fees since the defendant’s initial settlement offer (which the plaintiff rejected) did not comply with section 998. Read More

When a trial court applies a substantial negative multiplier to a presumptively accurate lodestar attorney fee amount, the court must clearly explain its case-specific reasons for the percentage reduction, and the trial court abuses its discretion if the reasons for the reduction include tying the fee award to some proportion of the buyer’s damages. Read More

There is no private right of action for a violation of Bus. & Prof. Code 9884.9, which requires car repair facilities to provide the customer a written estimate and obtain written customer approval before beginning repairs on a car. Read More

When a dealer spot delivers a car but later recalls the buyer to rewrite the deal, the dealer may charge interest from the date of the spot delivery and may backdate the new contract to the delivery date without violating California's Automobile Sales Finance Act so long as the rewritten contract discloses an APR accurately or within Truth in Lending… Read More

The standard Law Printing car contract, which requires the buyer to proceed to a second arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel if the first arbitration before a single arbitrator results in an award exceeding $100,000, is enforceable.  Read More

A defendant may tender the amount it estimates the plaintiff is entitled to under the Automobile Sales Finance Act without admitting liability, and may recover the tendered sum plus costs and attorney fees if the plaintiff recovers less at trial.  Read More

A car dealer selling a “certified” used car must provide the buyer, before the sale, with an inspection report that lists each part that was inspected and states how the part performed on inspection; failure to provide the report violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.  Read More

Plaintiff reasonably rejected earlier settlement offers requiring general releases and nondisclosure agreements and so was properly awarded her attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act after agreeing to a settlement lacking those provisions.  Read More

In compliance with the Rees-Levering Act, a car purchase agreement properly disclosed the buyer’s $3,000 as a down payment, rather than as a deferred down payment, even though the payment was by post-dated checks that the dealer orally agreed not to deposit for several days.  Read More