Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Holder-in-Due Course

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In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6333871, at *8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a car dealer's Benson-tender did not insulate the dealer from liability. In this case, Quantum's pre-litigation offer went far beyond a willingness to take corrective action as contemplated by the drafters of the CLRA. We… Read More

In Hemmings v. Camping Time RV Centers, LLC, 2017 WL 4552896, at *8 (N.D.Ga., 2017), Judge Thrash dismissed independent Holder Rule claims against the holder of an RISC for an RV because the FTC Holder Rule only subjects the holder to claims that can brought against the seller. Next, Bank of America argues that the Plaintiff's FTC Holder Rule claim should be… Read More

In Rodriguez v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 176 Conn.App. 392, 2017 WL 3977264 (Conn. App. April 17, 2017) , the Connecticut Court of Appeal held that adjudicating a dispute between the dealer and the finance company was properly within an Arbitrator’s jurisdiction in a consumer versus dealer arbitration. Here, A Better Way asserts that the parties' submission to… Read More

In Medina v. South Coast Car Company, 2017 WL 4128076, at *8 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held that a settlement agreement entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees was not capped by the FTC Holder Rule. In light of the Settlement and section 5, which, the parties agreed, made Medina the “prevailing party,” it is clear from the plain… Read More

In Tun v. Wells Fargo Bank, the California Court of Appeal found that the Trial Court did not err in finding, pre-trial in limine, that an Automobile RISC Holder's tender to the Court of money under Civil Code 2983.4 did not constitute an "admission of liability".  When the Trial Court, despite a defense verdict in favor of the Dealer and the… Read More

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

In Milligan v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2016 WL 2939786, at *1 (D.Md., 2016), Judge Chmsanow granted summary judgment to Ally against a customer who refused to believe that the RISC had been assigned to Ally.    On May 10, 2014, Plaintiff purchased a used vehicle from Waldorf Chevrolet Cadillac (the “Dealership”) in Waldorf,  Maryland by entering into a Retail Installment Sale… Read More

The FTC announced that it is seeking comment on the FTC Holder Rule, which preserves against the Holder all claims and defenses that a consumer can assert against the seller.  The FTC identified the following specific areas for comment: The Commission solicits comment on the following specific questions related to the Holder Rule: (1) Is there a continuing need for… Read More

In Wait v. Roundtree Mobile, LLC, 2015 WL 6964668, at *8-9 (S.D.Ala., 2015), Judge Granade  granted summary judgment to an auto finance company under the FTC Holder Rule. In the motion for summary judgment, BMW claims that “[b]oth the FTC Holder Rule as well as the explicit terms of the Contract provide that recovery by the Debtor shall not exceed amounts paid… Read More

In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2015 WL 1383659 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2015), the California Court of Appeal found the FTC Holder Rule did not deprive a holder of a RISC of the opportunity to defend itself merely because the automobile purchaser had obtained a default judgment against the selling dealer. The Laffertys argue they are necessarily already the prevailing party because… Read More

In Wales v. Arizona RV Centers, LLC, 2015 WL 137260 (E.D.La. 2015), Judge Lamelle explained the scope of the FTC Holder Rule's "Claims and Defenses" language in connection with the sale of a defective RV. As the foregoing reveals, Defendant's contentions as to the ability of buyers to assert affirmative claims against lenders under the FTC Holder Rule are contradicted by the… Read More

In GMAC, Inc. v. Branham, 2013 WL 2298349 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2013), the Ohio Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s conclusion that an automobile finance company had not established that it was the assignee of the vehicle lease (for collection purposes) because it did not produce its Dealer Agreement with the Dealer. In support of its first assignment… Read More

In Mercer v. Tumbleson Automotive Group, 2013 IL App (3d) 120400-U, 2013 WL 827716 (Ill.App. 3 Dist. 2013), Judge O’Brien found that a Holder of an automobile RISC was not subject to the Holder Rule for the misconduct of a seller. The facts were as follows: In May 2009, plaintiff Terry Mercer executed a retail installment contract with Taylor &… Read More

In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 412900 (2013), the Court of Appeal found that the FTC Holder Rule was not defensive in nature only, and that a consumer can assert affirmative ‘claims and defenses’ against the Holder, as the FTC’s May 3, 2012 Advisory Opinion also held. The Holder Rule unambiguously allows the buyer to… Read More

The Federal Trade Commission has issued an advisory affirming consumers' rights under the FTC's Holder Rule which protects the rights of consumers who make a purchase using credit obtained through the merchant.  The Rule, formally known as the "Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses," protects consumers when merchants sell a consumer's credit contracts to other lenders. Specifically, it… Read More

In Medina v. Performance Automotive Group, Inc.,  2012 WL 219308 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Karlton remanded to state court a class action alleging that a car dealer illegally ‘backdated’ retail installment contracts.  The defendant finance company had removed the matter to federal court, and then moved to compel arbitration (and the class action waiver) under Concepcion.   Judge Karlton found that neither… Read More

In Sixto Ramirez, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. National Cooperative Bank -- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 6032399 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2011), Judge Catterson found an assignee liable for common law fraud claims arising out of an automobile sale under the FTC and NY Holder Rules: In its decision and order dated August 3, 2010, the motion court granted NCB's motion. While not explicitly… Read More

As part of its ongoing efforts to ensure that auto dealers’ financing practices comply with federal consumer protection laws, the Federal Trade Commission has completed investigations of nearly 50 automobile dealers across the country to assess their compliance with the FTC’s Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, more commonly known as the “Holder in Due Course” Rule. The… Read More

In a decision deemed unpublishable, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Vinci Investment Company, Inc., 2010 WL 673267 (2010) that a claim brought by a credit union against a car dealer with whom it did business asserting wrongdoing in the assignment of retail installment sales contracts for automobiles might be covered by the dealer's insurance policy. … Read More

In Griffor v. Airport Chevrolet, Inc., 2009 WL 151698 (D.Or. 2009), Judge Hogan ruled on GMAC's Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claim for attorneys fees, which plaintiff claim was afforded by the FTC (and Oregon) Holder Rule(s).  Judge Hogan granted GMAC's Motion to Dismiss, holding: Under the FTC Holder Rule, the amount plaintiffs can recover against an assignee of a… Read More

1 2