Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance 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.

In Mount v. Peruzzi of Langhorne LLC, No. 21-2166, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157579, at *13-17 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2021), Judge Beetlestone allowed an ECOA claim to proceed, but not a TILA claim, for an automobile purchase spot-delivery situation gone wrong.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Michelle Mount, a dental assistant in Philadelphia, wanted to buy a new… Read More

In a recent weblog post, the CFPB warned against creditors undertaking unfair and discriminatory servicing of debts during the COVID-19 crisis.  The CFPB explained: We are monitoring the marketplace in real time and coordinating on an ongoing basis with fellow Federal and State regulators who are committed to stopping COVID-19-related malfeasance. We are taking, and will continue to take, swift… Read More

At the American Bar Association's meeting in Chicago this month, the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice proposed Resolution 104B on discrimination in auto lending, a copy of which can be found here.  The resolution was withdrawn for further consultation with the ABA's Business Law Section. Read More

A copy of the GAO's letter is here:  GAO Letter on Indirect Financing Rule  The Congressional Review Act requires all federal agencies to submit each rule to Congress and to the Comptroller General, and, as it did with regard to the CFPB's Arbitration Rule, Congress can disapprove of the rule within 60 legislative days by simple majority vote. Read More

The CFPB has dominated the press on fair lending in auto finance.  Last week, however, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing obtained a $6.2M verdict and an injunction against a sub-prime auto lender who used gender as basis upon which to bid for and/or purchase RISCs from automobile dealers with whom it did business.  Links hereto are: DFEH… 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

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1737 ("Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act"), designed to repeal the CFPB's March 2013 bulletin covering indirect auto finance. The Bill "declares without force or effect Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Bulletin 2013-02 (Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act), published March 21, 2013" and "amends… Read More

Watch the CFPB conference on auto finance here: "It makes no difference if the lender intended to discriminate:  the outcome and the result is the same".  Richard Cordray, 11.14.13  Cordray says that the CFPB does not have jurisdiction over auto dealers, but it does have jurisdiction over auto lenders.  Cordray says that the lender's allowing the dealer discretion to… Read More

CFPB Director Cordray responded yesterday to the Senate's request for information on the Bureau's methodology for determining discrimination in auto lending.  Cordray's 11.4.2013 Letter  The CFPB's methodology uses surname and geographical approaches, and "makes case-by-case assessments of whether to pursue supervisory or enforcement activity in response to statistically significant disparities”. Read More

In Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 3336727 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a mortgage lender was not a debt collector under the FDCPA. The Schlegels next argue that their complaint adequately alleged that Wells Fargo meets the second definition of debt collector, which as noted above… Read More

In Toney v. Kinsch, 2012 WL 567729 (N.D.Ill. 2012), Judge Chang found no ECOA violation on behalf of an automobile finance company arising from a dealership’s alleged malfeasance when the finance company re-assigned the RISC back to the dealer.   In September 2008, Ethel Toney contracted to buy a 2006 Dodge Charger from a car dealership, and Defendant Capital One… Read More