During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Governor Chapters AB 1821 Seeking to Legislatively Overturn Lafferty’s Limitation on Attorneys’ Fees under FTC Holder Rule

by Scott J. Hyman |

On July 12, the Governor chartered AB 1821, which seeks to overturn Lafferty’s cap on the Holder Rule.  AB 1821 adds Civil Code 1459.5 to the Civil Code, which now states A plaintiff who prevails on a cause of action against a defendant named pursuant to Title 16, Part 433 of the Code of Federal Regulations or any successor thereto, or… Read More

FTC Issues Commentary on the Holder Rule

by Scott J. Hyman |

As FY 2015 came to a close, the FTC asked for commentary on its Holder Rule for assignee liability.  Consumers and Industry responded in early 2016.  Three years in the making, the FTC finally responded, issuing its commentary today in the Federal Register, and it's first official commentary since the Rule was promulgated in 1975.  FTC Commentary on Holder Rule 5-2-19. … Read More

Cal. Supreme Court Denies Consumer’s Request for Review/Depublication of Lafferty Decision’s Holding that FTC Holder Rule Caps Attorneys’ Fees

by Jan T. Chilton |

In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 3470748, at *2 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., 2018), the Court of Appeal held: We conclude the Laffertys are limited under the plain meaning of the Holder Rule to recovering no more than the $68,000 they paid under terms of the loan with Wells Fargo. Consistent with Lafferty I, we continue to “hold—to… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says FTC Holder Rule Does Not Cap Fees, but Is Limited to Sums Spent to Litigate Case Against the Holder; Says Holder’s Tender under Section 2983.4 Provides No Defense

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales, Inc., 2017 WL 6334220, at *5 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision held that the FTC Holder Rule does not limit attorneys' fees but the Plaintiff's recovery against the Holder is limited to those fees/costs that resulted from litigation of claims against it. We therefore turn to Veros's alternative… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Benson Tender Was in Bad Faith Because it Imposed Unreasonable Conditions on the Consumer; Says As to Holder Who Tendered Back the RISC, “Once a Holder, Always a Holder”

by Colin T. Murphy |

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

District Court (Ga.) Says FTC Holder Rule Does Not Provide Independent Basis For Claims, But Only Makes Holder “Subject to” Claims That Can Be Lodged Against The Seller

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

Court of Appeal (Conn.) Holds that Dealer/Holder Dispute was Properly Before the Arbitrator in Dealer/Consumer Arbitration

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Finds in Unpublished Decision that Holder Rule Does Not Cap Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

1 2 3 4