Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Finance Charges

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.

District Court (Mich.) Says Car Dealer Might Have Had to Include GAP Cost in Finance Charge if GAP was Mandatory, But Dealer Did Not Violate TILA By Back-dating RISC

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Garl v. Genesee Valley Auto Mall, 2018 WL 994318, at *1 (E.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Cox granted in part and denied partial summary judgment for a car dealer who was alleged to have violated TILA in connection with the disclosure of GAP and back-dating a contract.   Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) during the transaction in… Read More

District Court (Ill.) Says Car Dealer’s Disclosure of Interest Rate on RISC Was Not Illusory or Violate TILA Simply Because Dealer Could Not Secure Financing

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Rojas v. X Motorsport, Inc., 2017 WL 2404953, at *3–4 (N.D.Ill., 2017), Judge Feinerman granted a summary judgment to a car dealer against whom a TILA claim was filed. The parties agree that the RISC disclosed all the information that TILA demands, but Rojas contends that the disclosures were illusory—not “meaningful,” as TILA demands— because the parties' contract was… Read More

District Court (Va.) Says Car Dealer May Violate TILA by Inflating Vehicle’s Purchase Price If, Also, Cash Price is Higher than Financed Price; State UDAP Claims Can Be Asserted Against Holder under the FTC Holder Rule

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

8th Cir. Finds that Car Dealer May Have Violated TILA’s “Presentation” Requirement; But Says Allegedly Improper Fee Did Not Throw Off TILA Disclosures Because Fee Was Not Included in the Amount Financed

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Conn.) Says Car Dealer’s Inflation of Vehicle’s Purchase Price to Account for Trade-In Did Not Violate TILA; Distinguishes Thompson v. 10,000 RVs

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Pa.) Says Inflated Car Purchase Prices Used to Offset Inflated Trade-in Credits Does Not Violate TILA

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Nev.) Holds that Failure to Sell Used Vehicle at Fair Market Price Constituted “Hidden Finance Charge” under TILA; Found that Post-Repo NOI Violated Nevada Law

by Scott J. Hyman |

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