Repossession

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 Thompson v. Exeter Fin. Corp., No. 2021AP219, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 494, at *1-3 (Ct. App. June 8, 2022), the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a consumer who alleged breach of the peace during the course of an attempted repossession. On June 4, 2017, repossession agents attempted to repossess Thompson's car. Thompson's family members protested and told… Read More

In Melcher v. Titlemax of Tex., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-46, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95414, at *11-13 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2022), Judge Brown denied a motion to dismiss under the FDCPA filed by a repossession referral agency. MVTrac argues that despite the plaintiffs' allegations, it is neither a debt collector nor a skip-tracing company. Dkt. 29 at 7. Though there… Read More

In Steube v. Santander Consumer United States, No. 19-cv-522-wmc, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236322 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 16, 2020), Judge Conley granted summary judgment against a debtor who claimed to have protested during a repossession. More to the point, in describing what constitutes a protest for purposes of 11 constituting a "breach of the peace," the Hollibush court explained that… Read More

In Russell v. Santander Consumer United States, No. 19-CV-119, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101404 (E.D. Wis. June 9, 2020), the District Court held an automobile finance company responsible for the repossession company’s breach of the peace. The Russells also sue their creditor, Santander, under Wis. Stat. § 425.206(2)(a) and Wis. Stat. §§ 427.104(1)(h) and (1)(j) for the illegal repossession. The… Read More

In Burt v. Chase Auto Fin. Corp., No. 19-C-739, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202056 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2019), Judge Griesbach permitted tort claims arising out of an allegedly wrongful repossession of a vehicle to proceed despite the economic loss rule. Chase asserts that the court should dismiss Burt's invasion of privacy, trespass to land and chattel, and conversion claims… Read More

In Darren Trucking Co. v. Paccar Fin. Corp., No. GJH-18-3936, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141666, at *4-6 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2019), Judge Hazel allowed a breach of the peace claim to proceed against a finance company. Generally, "[t]he debtor's opposition, however slight and even if merely oral, normally makes any entry or seizure a breach of the peace." See… Read More

In Dixon v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., No. 19-30123, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20319 (5th Cir. July 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals held that GM Financial’s repossession was proper. GM Financial submitted the following unrebutted summary-judgment evidence showing it complied with these requirements before repossessing Dixon's car: Dixon's car lease—proving that it was a month-to-month lease. Dixon's payment record—establishing that… Read More

In Westbrook v. Nasa Fed. Credit Union, No. 3:17-cv-00534-AKK, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35420 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 6, 2019), Judge Kallon granted summary judgment to a repossession agency.  First, Judge Kallon adopted the majority view that breach of the peace deprives the taker of the right to possession of the property and not vice versa. T4SR argues that its "present… Read More

The legalese used in the opinion made the decision almost incomprehensible, and would have made Bryan Garner throw a fit.  But, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands nevertheless got it right in Cornelius v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2017 WL 3412202, at *6–8 (V.I., 2017), when it held that an unperfected lender who erroneously filed a termination statement still held… Read More

In Gay v. Alliant Credit Union, 2017 WL 35704, at *4 (E.D.Mo., 2017), Judge Fleissig said that a creditor need not repossess a boat or bear liability once it sunk.  The debtor still owed the money. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the UCC, as codified by Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.9-609, by “promising that it would repossess 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 Brooks v. Leon’s Quality Adjusters, Inc., 2016 WL 4539967 (E.D. Cal. 2016), Judge Thurston granted summary judgment to a repossession company under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act. Moreover, courts have determined repossession companies, such as Leon’s Quality Adjusters, are not generally “debt collectors” subject to liability under the FDCPA. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693, 699… Read More

In McFarland-Rourk v. Drive Time Credit, Inc., 2016 WL 3014679, at *2-3 (M.D.Ga., 2016), Judge Land exercise jurisdiction and found an auto finance company's post-discharge of a consumer's vehicle to be proper. The general rule is that “[u]nless a lien is avoidable and the debtor has taken timely steps to avoid it, the lien survives the discharge in bankruptcy.” Holloway… Read More

In Auto Liquidation Center, Inc. v. Chaca, 2015 WL 8479305, at *3 (Ind.App.,2015), a jury returned a verdict for Jorge on all counts, awarding damages in the amount of $45,883.86 for the conversion claim and the trial court entered a final judgment for Jorge in the amount of $121,069.66, which included prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.  The customer had taken the… Read More

In Thompson v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2015 WL 5730572, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y.,2015), Judge Garaufis find an automobile finance company not vicariously liable for a tort committed by the repossession during the course of the repossession. Defendant argues that it cannot be held liable for the alleged damage to Plaintiff's home because “[a]s a matter of law, Wells Fargo is not… Read More

In Vantu v. Echo Recovery, L.L.C., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 571102 (N.D.Ohio 2015), Judge Carr found a repossession loses its exemption under the FDCPA when it violates state law. In any event, the fact that Echo's principal business is not debt collection would not save it from liability under the FDCPA. That is so, because Vantu has plausibly alleged Echo is… Read More

In Thompson-Young v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 132479-U, 2014 WL 3726900 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2014), the Illinois Court of Appeal found no breach of the peace by the repossession agent for the automobile finance company. This is primarily because, again, even accepting as true all well-pled facts and reasonable inferences from the amended complaint, Wells… Read More

In Fagen v. Carnow Acceptance Co., 2013 WL 6283653 (Wis.App. 2013), the Wisconsin Court of Appeal held: Fagen argued that the court failed to determine at trial whether Carnow Acceptance violated WIS. STAT. § 425.206(2)(a) by committing a breach of the peace. See WIS. STAT. § 425.206(2)(a) and (3). Carnow Acceptance stipulated at the hearing that a breach of peace… Read More

In Badeen v. Par, Inc., --- N.W.2d ----, 2013 WL 1489372 (Mich.App. 2013), the Michigan Court of Appeals found that auto finance lenders’ practice of hiring a single, general repossession contractor (a “forwarder”) who forwards assignments to local, licensed repossession agents did not trigger Michigan’s debt collection licensing statutes for the forwarder. Plaintiff George Badeen, a licensed collection agency manager,… Read More

In  Mkhitaryan v. U.S. Bancorp, 2012 WL 6204840 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Mahan refused to grant a Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on the claim that a repossession agent violated the FDCPA and ‘breached the peace’ during the course of a repossession.  As to the FDCPA, Judge Mahan found it inapplicable.   The purpose of the FDCPA includes, among other things,… Read More

1 2