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

Spot-Delivery

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.

District Court (Fla.) Finds that Car Dealer Properly Invoked Right to Cancel Transaction When Financing Could Not Be Obtained

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Clarke v. West Palm Nissan, LLC., 2018 WL 521031, at *1–2 (S.D.Fla., 2018), Judge Rosenberg dismissed a TILA claim premised on a car dealers invocation of a right to cancel the transaction if and when financing could not be found. Defendant's Right to Cancel the Sale. Defendant's right to cancel appears in the sales contract, which is attached as… Read More

Court of Appeal (Fla.) Finds Car Dealer Violated TILA by Retaining Right to Rescind if No Financing Obtained in a Spot Delivery Situation

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Bengal Motor Co., Ltd. v. Cuello, --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 1980147 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2013), the Florida Court of Appeal found that a car dealer violated TILA by having the customer sign a RISC, but also 2 other documents stating that consummation was conditioned on the dealer securing financing.  The facts were as follows: Cuello sought to buy… Read More

Bankruptcy Court (Cal.) Awards $18,032 in Damages/Puni’s Against Car Dealer Who Repossessed a Failed Spot-Delivery Deal in Violation of the Automatic Stay

by Scott J. Hyman |

In In re Hernandez-Panameno, 2012 WL 4867580 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Carlson awarded $18,032 in sanctions and damages against a car dealer who repossessed a vehicle in violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.  The case arose out of a spot-delivery situation where the dealer could not find financing for the sale of the vehicle. Debtors purchased a car from Creditor… Read More

It’s Okay to Roll Trade-In Negative Equity into the Purchase Price in Texas; You’ll be Sanctioned for Arguing Otherwise

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Owen v. Jim Allee Imports, Inc., --- S.W.3d ----, 2012 WL 3755750 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012), the Texas Court of Appeal held (again) that it was so well-settled and proper for a car dealer to roll trade-in negative equity into the purchase price of the RISC that a Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned for arguing otherwise. In Bledsoe, this Court considered… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Remands Case Against Auto Finance Company who Removed to Enforce Arbitration Clause/Class Action Waiver Because FTC Holder Rule/ASFA Involved No Substantial Federal Question

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Medina v. Performance Automotive Group, Inc.,  2012 WL 219308 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Karlton remanded to state court a class action alleging that a car dealer illegally ‘backdated’ retail installment contracts.  The defendant finance company had removed the matter to federal court, and then moved to compel arbitration (and the class action waiver) under Concepcion.   Judge Karlton found that neither… Read More

Supreme Court (Va.) Holds Spot-Delivery Dealer Retained Security Interest to Repossess Vehicle, But Still Had to Give Post-Repossession Notice

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Cappo Management V, Inc. v. Britt, --- S.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 2277386 (Va. 2011), the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed a spot delivery situation where the dealer was unable to secure financing for the consumer and, accordingly, repossessed the car.  The Court found the repossession proper under Article 9 of the UCC, explaining:   Applying this principle, we hold… Read More

District Court (Mich.) Finds TILA Violation Against Auto Dealer, But Rejects “Spot-Delivery” Claim

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Williams v. Delamar Car Co., 2011 WL 1811061 (W.D. Mich. 2011), Judge Quist entered a default judgment against an automobile dealer for TILA violations, but rejected Plaintiff’s ‘spot-delivery’ claim: Plaintiff asserts that Defendant committed a second TILA violation by failing to disclose a hidden finance charge—the fee based on Plaintiff's credit risk—that would not have been charged in a… Read More