Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Auto Finance”

Fla. App. Court (4th DCA) Holds RIC Not Subject to State Usury Law

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District recently affirmed entry of summary judgment in favor of a motor vehicle retail seller and assignee against a consumer who alleged that the 27.81 percent interest charge under the retail installment contract (“RIC”) exceeded the interest rate limit imposed by Florida’s usury statute. In so ruling, the Court concluded that the financing contract at issue was not subject to the interest rate limit imposed by Florida’s general usury statute, but instead by the specific controlling statute, the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act. A copy of the…

Calif. App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Correction Offer Under CLRA Did Not Preclude Other Claims

The California Court of Appeal for the Second District recently held that a correction offer under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act did not prevent a consumer from pursuing causes of action for fraud and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law based on the same conduct because the CLRA’s remedies are cumulative and non-exhaustive. A copy of the opinion in Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. An automotive dealer published print advertisements showing low prices for specific cars to attract customers to the dealership.  Small print at the bottom of the advertisements stated that the…

3rd Cir. Holds Defendants Arguing Class Not Ascertainable in TCPA Suit Must Still Produce Putative Class Member Info

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reversed an order denying a motion to compel production of a marketing database of putative class members in a federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit. In so ruling, the Third Circuit held that:  (1) defendants arguing that a class is not ascertainable should be required to produce information in its possession about putative class members during discovery, and (2) although affidavits from potential class members alone do not satisfy the ascertainability standard for class certification, such affidavits in combination with other records can meet the ascertainability standard. A copy of…

MD Tenn. Holds Auto Finance Creditor’s Telephone Authorization Process Complied With EFTA

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee recently held that a creditor complied with the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act when it obtained verbal authorization to accept the consumer’s electronic fund transfer and request for enrollment into an autopay system. In so ruling, the Court held that the creditor was not required to send the consumer a copy of his electronic signature (the recording).  Instead, the Court held, the written confirmation of enrollment need only include the material terms of the autopay system, and sending the confirmation of enrollment within two business days of the date of…

Calif. App. Court Holds Consumer Properly Rejected Pre-Suit Offer With General Release, Confidentiality Clauses

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a successful consumer plaintiff was entitled to $185,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, even though she rejected a settlement offer containing an appropriate remedy before she filed suit. In so ruling, the Court held that rejecting the pre-litigation settlement offer was not unreasonable, as the offer required the consumer to agree to a broad release of claims and a confidentiality clause, and especially as the confidentiality provision in particular was unlawful as to the consumer’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, et seq. (“Song-Beverly Act”) claims.…

9th Cir. Holds Car Dealer Failed to Provide ‘Completed Inspection Report’ as to ‘Certified’ Used Car

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a car dealership inspection certificate violated California statutory law that required that a vehicle seller provide a “completed inspection report” prior to the sale of any “certified” used car.

6th Cir. Holds Auto Dealer Not Excepted from Providing ECOA Adverse Action Notices

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an automobile dealer is a “creditor” under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act that was not excepted from the requirement to provide adverse action notices, as the dealer did not “merely arrange for credit by referring applicants to lenders” as provided under Regulation B. The Court also reversed the district court’s ruling that injunctive relief was not an available remedy under ECOA and also reversed summary judgment in the dealer’s favor on the plaintiff’s state-law conversion claim, remanding the case for further proceedings on those claims. A copy…

CFPB, DOJ Enter Into Alleged ‘Discretionary Pricing’ Discrimination Consent Order with Auto Finance Company

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Justice recently entered into a Consent Order with an automobile finance company for alleged violations of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 (ECOA), arising from the auto finance company’s policies and practices allowing car dealer discretion for interest rate markups. A copy of the consent order is available at: Link to Consent Order. A copy of the related DOJ complaint is available at: Link to Complaint. In connection with sales of cars on credit, car dealers frequently submit credit applications to auto finance companies on behalf of their…

CFPB to Supervise Nonbank Auto Finance Companies

Large non-bank auto financers will now be supervised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a final rule released June 10, that also outlines the examination procedures that will be used to evaluate said companies. Citing that auto loans are the third largest category of household debt in America, and the automobile leasing market continues to grow, the CFBP says the rule “will help ensure that larger auto finance companies treat consumers fairly.” The rule change may affect approximately 6.8 million customers of 34 of the largest nonbank auto finance lenders, according to the CFBP. The CFPB’s auto lending supervision will…