Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Fraud

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 Vega v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 2018 WL 3216347, at *5 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a son, whose mother purchased a vehicle for him, could not recover for economic loss and personal injuries sustained when the vehicle he drove malfunctioned and had an accident, causing him personal injury and… Read More

In McCray v. Jefferson Chevrolet Company, Inc., 2018 WL 1964674, at *2–3 (E.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Drain found that a Plaintiff's testimony that the RISC was blank when she signed it created a triable issue of fact as to whether TILA disclosures were given. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1638(3)–(6), and (9) by not disclosing the amount financed, the finance charge,… Read More

In Sain v. Adams Auto Group, Inc., 2016 WL 47730, at *1 (N.C.App.,2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeal addressed an increasingly common factual situation. Plaintiffs purchased a used 2010 Honda Civic automobile (“the vehicle”) from defendant, Adams Auto Group (“Adams”) on 18 January 2013. The vehicle was previously owned by the Freemans, who are not a party to this action.… Read More

In Overholt v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 403873 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Burrell granted summary judgment to a car dealer who allegedly had falsely stated that the vehicle was “certified” and allegedly had failed to disclose that the vehicle was prior daily rental. On December 31, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Jeep Liberty (the “Jeep.”) from CarMax.… Read More

In Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc., 2011 WL 2207477 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a dealer’s use of non-OEM parts to repair a new vehicle damaged in shipment did not negate the safe harbor of Vehicle Code 9990-1.  In a previous opinion, the Court had held that   In Bourgi I, we… Read More

In Perlas v. GMAC Mort., L.C.C. – Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2010 WL 3155946 (2010), the California Court of Appeal held that a finance company owed no duty to the borrower to determne the borrower’s ability to repay. Though Perlas involved a home mortgage loan, the same principle may apply to auto finance as well. The Court of Appeal explained:   Neither… Read More