Rees-Levering Act -- Civil Code § 2981

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.

AB 2311 on GAP Protection has been approved by the California Governor, and sent to the Secretary of State for enrollment.  The bill is described as This bill would establish provisions to govern the offer, sale, provision, or administration, in connection with a conditional sale contract, of a guaranteed asset protection waiver (GAP waiver), defined to mean an optional contractual… Read More

D'Happart v. First Commonwealth Bank, 2022 PA Super 132, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328 (No. 580 WDA 2021 August 5, 2022) , Judge Bender affirmed the Court of Common Pleas finding against a consumer who challenged the application of the UCC's safe harbor to the notice required after his vehicle was repossessed. Appellants' second issue, they claim that FCB's "pre-sale… Read More

In Safe Credit Union v. Diaz, No. C092158, 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5435, at *7 (Aug. 23, 2021), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that an anti-SLAPP motion by a credit union was not proper to challenge an NOI class action filed in response to a debt collection action. For complaints and cross-complaints alleging mixed causes… Read More

In Lobel Fin. Corp. v. Guiam, No. H044095, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7717, at *8 (Nov. 20, 2019), the Court of Appeal found that an automobile finance company's NOI withstood an ASFA challenge. In this case, respondent sent appellant an NOI pursuant to the ASFA. The terms of the NOI are not in dispute. What is in dispute is… Read More

In Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co., No. LA CV 19-00652 PA (ASx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185279 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019), Judge Anderson held that a vehicle manufacturer need not reimburse the consumer for negative equity financed into the RISC. Finally, Plaintiff argues Ford's repurchase offer was "less than 50% the amounts he had paid for the vehicle." (P.… Read More

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

In Baseline Financial Services, Inc. v. Hobbs, 2016 WL 7243531, at *4–6 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision found that an automobile lender complied with the mailing requirements of the ASFA. It is undisputed that Bank of the West sold the vehicle on March 18, 2010. Baseline presented in evidence an NOI with respect… Read More

In Raceway Ford Cases, the California Supreme Court found that a car dealer did not violate the AFSA in backdating a RISC to the date of sale when financing could not be found after a spot-delivery. The Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), also known as the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.) is… 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 Ally Financial, Inc. v Trujillo, 2016 WL 4766225, at *6 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that class notice in an NOI class action adequately informed the class members of potential adverse tax consequences. On appeal, Trujillo and Riley contend that the class notice regarding tax consequences violates due process, and is therefore… Read More

In Nichols v. Century West, LLC, 2016 WL 4368157, at *7–8 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held that post-dated checks were not "deferred down-payments" under ASFA and did not violate the single document rule. None of these cases offers guidance on whether post-dated checks provided to a dealership at the time of a sale should be categorized as… Read More

In Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, 2016 WL 2609296, at *2-4 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Whelan granted partial summary judgment to an NOI class action plaintiff who argued that US Bank's NOI violated state law.  First, Judge Whelan rejected US Bank's conflict preemption argument. On September 24, 2009, this Court granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss the case based on the finding… Read More

In Lopez v. Asbury Fresno Imports, LLC, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2015 WL 513150 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2015), the Court of Appeal affirmed a bench trial award in favor of a car dealer against a consumer.   The Court of Appeal rejected Plaintiffs’ claim under the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, finding that even if a “Four-Square” was a “purchase order” under… Read More

In Raceway Ford Cases, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 4589808 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding in favor of defendant car dealer as to backdating claims, but remanded to the trial court to determine whether the action could still be maintained as a class action.  The Court of Appeal's decision is important because of its… Read More

In Bor Pha v. Yia Yang, 2014 WL 654559 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Nunley certified as AFSA class against a car dealership, with a sub-class of Hmong putative classmembers. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs Bor Pha and Nou Lee (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Yi a Yang and Yia Auto Sales, Inc.FN2 sold automobiles and arranged financing… Read More

In Munoz v. Express Auto Sales,--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 131195 (Cal.Super.A.D. 2014), , the Los Angeles County Appellate Division set forth how an automobile dealer can cure Rees-Levering violations under Civil Code 2984. Pursuant to a second amended complaint filed November 1, 2012, plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated the ASFA by failing to properly itemize the sources of the… Read More

In Wright v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2013 WL 6137482 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion that an automobile customer who paid a small sum of money to set up his right to bring an NOI class action lacked UCL standing to bring the claim.  On April… Read More

In Harrelson v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2013 WL 5348087 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2013), Harrelson filed a class action against CarMax, pleading the first class to be any person who in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint purchased a car from CarMax, signed a retail installment contract (RIC), and made a deferred down payment and whose… Read More

In Muller v. Auto Mission, Ltd., 2013 WL 1996916 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Magistrate Judge Cousins remanded a removed state court action that alleged a host of Rees-Levering Automobile Sales & Finance Act violations, many of which included embedded federal claims.  Judge Cousins found an absence of substantial federal question, and rejected the defendants’ contention that a defense of compliance with federal… Read More

1 2