Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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.

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

1 2 3 4