In Dillard v. Thomasville Auto, 2016 WL 6471928--- F.Supp.3d ---- (M.D.N.C. 2016), Judge Schroeder found that disjointed printing on a RISC did not constitute a TILA violation. The court finds that in this case no reasonable consumer would interpret the disclosure form in the manner Dillard argues, and it would not be reasonable and equitable to do so. The construction… Read More
In Todd v. Midwest Motors Sales & Service, Inc., 2016 WL 6155690, at *5 (W.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Holmes Bell denied summary judgment to a car dealer under TILA. The facts were as follows. On February 27, 2016, Plaintiff visited Defendant Midwest Motors to purchase a vehicle. He selected a 2013 Kia Optima, and agreed to purchase it by trading in… Read More
In Harold v. TMC Enterprises, LLC, 2016 WL 6069023 (W.D. Va. 2016), Judge Moon held that a car buyer adequately pleaded a TILA violation due to an inflated purchase price of the vehicle where the buyer also alleged that the finance price of a vehicle is higher than its cash price. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the TILA by failing… Read More
In Yancy v. America's Preowned Selection, LLC, 2016 WL 4150927, at *2 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment in favor of a car dealer because the Plaintiff had created a factual question regarding whether the dealer violated TILA's presentation requirement. Appellants argue that the district court erred by interpreting their 15 U.S.C.… Read More
In Morales v. Barberino Brothers, Inc., 2016 WL 2626826, at *4-7 (D.Conn., 2016), Judge Haight dismissed a TILA claim brought by a consumer against a car dealer who inflated the car's purchase price to account for the vehicle that the customer traded in. Two provisions of TILA are at issue. Section 1638(a)(2)(B) requires in certain instances that a creditor provide a… Read More
In Pettye v. Santander Consumer, USA, Inc., 2016 WL 704840, at *3-4 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge St. Eve dismissed a TILA claim filed against an auto finance company because the disclosures regarding GAP complied with TILA or any violations were not apparent on the face of the disclosure statement. An assignee is liable only where the TILA violation appears on… Read More
In Gregory v. Metro Auto Sales, Inc., 2016 WL 336861, at *2-3 (E.D.Pa., 2016), Judge McHugh found that a car dealer who allegedly inflated the purchase price of automobiles to offset inflated trade-in credits the dealer gave to the purchasers did not violate TILA. Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Congress adopted… Read More
In Pannetta v. Milford Chrysler Sales Inc., 2015 WL 1296736 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Pappert found no TILA liability against a holder of a vehicle RISC, despite the egregious facts pleaded. The facts alleged were as follows. The events giving rise to this suit began when Pannetta received a mail solicitation from Milford and MOA. (FAC ¶ 14.) The solicitation stated that Pannetta… Read More
In Durocher v. Westborn Chrysler Jeep Inc., 2014 WL 5162384 (Mich.App. 2014), the Michigan Court of Appeal found in an unpublished case that a Plaintiff could state a case through trial for violation of state law by concealing negative equity in the purchase price of a vehicle notwithstanding representations to the contrary. Durocher testified that Westborn represented that he would… Read More
In Raceway Ford Cases, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 4589808 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding in favor of defendant car dealer as to backdating claims, but remanded to the trial court to determine whether the action could still be maintained as a class action. The Court of Appeal's decision is important because of its… Read More
In Bengal Motor Co., Ltd. v. Cuello, --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 1980147 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2013), the Florida Court of Appeal found that a car dealer violated TILA by having the customer sign a RISC, but also 2 other documents stating that consummation was conditioned on the dealer securing financing. The facts were as follows: Cuello sought to buy… Read More
In Robinson v. Point One Toyota, Evanston --- N.E.2d ----, 2012 IL App (1st) 111889, 2012 WL 6725904 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2012), the Illinois Court of Appeal found that an automobile lease complied with Regulation M: [The Plaintiffs] maintain that, as a matter of law, their lease agreements violated the disclosure requirements of the CLR and Regulation M in that default… Read More
In Stevenson v. American Honda Finance Corp., 2012 WL 6672848 (D.N.J. 2012), Judge Pisano found no liability for an automobile finance company's acceptance of a RISC that contained a miscalculated "Credit Inquiry Fee". In May 2011, Plaintiff entered into a retail installment sales contract (the “RISC”) with non-party Honda Universe for the financed purchase of a 2009 Honda Civic. The RISC, which… Read More
In Limtiaco v. Auction Cars.com, LLC, 2012 WL 4911726 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Du found that a car dealer’s failure to sell a vehicle at market price constituted a hidden finance charge under TILA, even though the RISC did not finance any part of the purchase. On July 24, 2010, Limtiaco entered into a Motor Vehicle Purchase Order and Federal Disclosure… Read More
In Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 3804370 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a credit card company’s on-line TILA disclosures identifying that an annual fee would be required provided a safe-harbor against a false advertising claim based on a claim that a retailer’s advertisements failed to disclose… Read More
In Owen v. Jim Allee Imports, Inc., --- S.W.3d ----, 2012 WL 3755750 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012), the Texas Court of Appeal held (again) that it was so well-settled and proper for a car dealer to roll trade-in negative equity into the purchase price of the RISC that a Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned for arguing otherwise. In Bledsoe, this Court considered… Read More
In Aleman v. Ellington Auto Sales & Financing, LLC, 2012 WL 3611212 (D.Conn. 2012), Judge Underhill found that a downpayment on a car evidence by a note was not a deferred down-payment under TILA, but rather was permitted under Reg. Z’s allowance of a creditor to disclose the terms of the Note separately from the disclosures pertaining to the RISC. … Read More
In Vogel v. Onyx Acceptance Corp., --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 6316014 (Wyo. 2011), the Wyoming Supreme Court found in favor of an auto finance company and against Wyoming regulators. The Regulators had claimed that “Onyx violated the WUCCC by charging customers a fee, that was not disclosed when credit was extended, for making payments by telephone or… Read More
In LeFoll v. Key Hyundai of Manchester LLC, 2011 WL 6153171 (D.Conn. 2011), Judge Egington held that a car dealer’s printing malfunction on a class of consumers’ RISCs violated TILA as to both the dealer and the assignee finance company. The facts were as follows. On June 30, 2009 plaintiff purchased a Hyundai Sonata pursuant to a retail installment sales… Read More
In Sixto Ramirez, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. National Cooperative Bank -- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6032399 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2011), Judge Catterson found an assignee liable for common law fraud claims arising out of an automobile sale under the FTC and NY Holder Rules: In its decision and order dated August 3, 2010, the motion court granted NCB's motion. While not explicitly… Read More
