Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Auto Finance”

Missouri Supreme Court Holds Dealers-Only Auction Is a ‘Private Sale,’ Reverses Lower Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently reversed the judgment of a trial court in favor of two consumers on the finance company’s petition for a deficiency judgment in relation to a promissory note and security agreement financing the consumers’ vehicle.

Maryland High Court Rules CLEC Requires Forfeiture of Treble the Prohibited Interest and Fees Collected

The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, recently held that under Maryland Commercial Law Article § 12-1018(b), a credit grantor that knowingly violates the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions is required to forfeit treble the amount of interest, fees, and charges collected in violation of the subtitle.

Auto Lender Agrees to Pay $5.5 Million in Massachusetts to Resolve Allegations It Failed to Provide Compliant Deficiency Notices

Another auto lender recently agreed to pay millions of dollars to resolve allegations made by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General that it failed to provide compliant deficiency notices following the repossession of automobiles from consumers within the Commonwealth.

3rd Cir. Holds Penn Regulator’s Actions Against Out-of-State Lender Did Not Violate Commerce Clause

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reversed a trial court's ruling that the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities violated the Commerce Clause by issuing and attempting to enforce a subpoena to an out-of-state vehicle title lender regarding the out-of-state lender's interactions with Pennsylvania residents.

Calif. App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds ‘Holder Rule’ Allows Attorney Fees, Other Amounts Against Assignees

The Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment holding that the limitation on recovery under the Federal Trade Commission’s “holder rule” does not preclude recovery of attorney fees, costs, nonstatutory costs, or prejudgment interest against the assignee.

Wisc. Supreme Court Limits ‘Unconscionability’ Claims Regarding Consumer Credit Transactions

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held that (1) in the Wisconsin statute regarding nonjudicial enforcement for consumer transactions (§ 425.206(2)(b)), the term “dwelling used by a customer as a residence” includes a garage attached to the residential building in which the customer lives; and (2) claims of unconscionability under the Wisconsin statute regarding remedies in consumer credit transactions (§ 425.107) are available only in “actions or other proceedings” brought by a creditor to enforce rights arising from consumer credit transactions and that a non-judicial repossession is not such an action or proceeding.

This Year the 1st Circuit and Mass. Courts Tackled Consumer Contacts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and federal and state courts in Massachusetts decided several important cases for the consumer financial services industry in 2021. Two related cases concerned the constitutionality of a Massachusetts regulation limiting telephone contact with debtors and a third ruling came from the First Circuit on a federal TCPA action.

Calif. App. Court (4th Dist) Rules Arbitration Clause Invalid Due to Prohibition on Injunctive Relief

The Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that an arbitration provision contained in a credit card agreement was unenforceable because it sought to bar a customer from pursuing “in any forum” his claim for a public injunction.

9th Cir. Rejects Challenge to Assumption of Auto Lease in Bankruptcy

In a case of first impression on the issue of “whether a lease assumption can survive discharge even though it is not reaffirmed[,]” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a creditor’s post-discharge attempt to collect the balance owed under an automobile lease assumed by the debtor post-petition but prior to discharge in a Chapter 7 case did not violate the discharge injunction.