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.


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 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

1 2 3