Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

TILA -- 15 U.S.C. § 1601

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 Bbbb Bonding Corp. v. Caldwell, No. A162453, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100, at *2-4 (Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2021), the Court of Appeal found that bail bond premium financing agreements are "consumer credit contracts". This appeal requires us to interpret a long-standing consumer protection statute in a novel context: whether the requirement under Civil Code section 1799.91 that notice… Read More

In Mount v. Peruzzi of Langhorne LLC, No. 21-2166, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157579, at *13-17 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2021), Judge Beetlestone allowed an ECOA claim to proceed, but not a TILA claim, for an automobile purchase spot-delivery situation gone wrong.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Michelle Mount, a dental assistant in Philadelphia, wanted to buy a new… Read More

In Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet, No. 20-1944, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11183, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no TILA or FCRA violation by a car dealer in attempting to get a customer's car financed.  The facts were as follows: In 2017, Brogan bought a used Subaru from Fred… Read More

In Robinson v. Capital One Auto Fin., No. 1:20-cv-23105-UU, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234681 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2020), Judge Ungaro dismissed a case against an auto lender under TILA based on ‘predatory lending’. Further, "there is no cause of action under TILA for predatory lending practices." Pickard v. Serra Mazda, Case No. 2:19-cv-02119-JHE, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184125, *22-23… Read More

In Warford v. Memphis City Emples. Credit Union, No. 2:19-cv-02403-JPM-cgc, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150173 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2020), Judge McCalla found that a credit union’s disclosures of an irregular payment schedule for purchase of a vehicle violated TILA.  The facts were as follows: The following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary judgment. On or about December 27,… Read More

In Muñoz v. JLO Auto., Inc., No. 3:19-cv-01793 (MPS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136552 (D. Conn. July 31, 2020), Judge Shea refused to enter a default judgment against a car dealer based on the consumer’s claim that she was falsely told that GAP was required as part of the transaction. Just below this language is the cost ($752), the term… Read More

In Isenbergh v. S. Chi. Nissan, 2020 IL App (1st) 190849-U, ¶¶ 43-49, the Illinois Court of Appeal found no TILA violation in a vehicle sale transaction. Plaintiff further contends that the circuit court erroneously rejected his claim that South Chicago did not make the disclosures required under the TILA. The TILA "is not a general prohibition of fraud in… Read More

In Brogan v. Fred Beans Motors of Doylestown, Inc., No. 17-5628, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58863, at *35-37 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2020), Judge Kenney found that an automobile transaction that involved multiple RISC re-writes and multiple lender declinations did not violate TILA. In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges that the "Federal Truth in Lending Disclosures in the retail sales installment… Read More

In Eckhardt v. State Farm Bank FSB, No. 1:18-cv-01180, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40196 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2019), Judge McDade found that State Farm Bank properly treated a Plaintiff’s purchase of cryptocurrency on his State Farm credit card as a cash-advance subject to cash advance fees rather than as a purchase of goods. The facts were as follows: Plaintiff… Read More

In McCray v. Jefferson Chevrolet Company, Inc., 2018 WL 1964674, at *2–3 (E.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Drain found that a Plaintiff's testimony that the RISC was blank when she signed it created a triable issue of fact as to whether TILA disclosures were given. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1638(3)–(6), and (9) by not disclosing the amount financed, the finance charge,… Read More

In Garl v. Genesee Valley Auto Mall, 2018 WL 994318, at *1 (E.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Cox granted in part and denied partial summary judgment for a car dealer who was alleged to have violated TILA in connection with the disclosure of GAP and back-dating a contract.   Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) during the transaction in… Read More

In Ruiz v. Auto Star Motors, Inc., 2018 WL 827835, at *4–5 (E.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that the dealer's exercise of a right-to-cancel clause that operated if financing was not obtained did not violate TILA. The first preliminary argument proceeds as follows: “TILA and its enabling regulations require the creditor to make disclosures before consummation of the transaction.”… Read More

In Rojas v. X-Motorsport, Inc., 2018 WL 734408, at *2–3 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 2018), the Court of Appeals held that a car dealer's rescission form did not violate TILA. Rojas's case is governed by Illinois law, which “mandates that when ‘different instruments are executed together as part of one transaction or agreement, they are to be read together and construed as constituting but… Read More

In Dixon v. General Motors Financial Corporation, 2018 WL 746379, at *4 (E.D.La., 2018), Judge Brown found that a TILA claim was not stated because any violation would have to appear on the face of the document and the Plaintiff had filed suit longer than 1-year after purchasing the vehicle. In Jackson v. Adcock, another division of this district held that… Read More

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

In Boseman v. Prestige Auto Sales, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-728, 2017 WL 3172742, at *2 (M.D.Tenn. July 25,  2017), Judge Collier granted summary judgment to a car buyer who's RISC failed to include a date for the final payment due under the RISC. The next issue the Court must address is whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the required TILA… Read More

In Rojas v. X Motorsport, Inc., 2017 WL 2404953, at *3–4 (N.D.Ill., 2017), Judge Feinerman granted a summary judgment to a car dealer against whom a TILA claim was filed. The parties agree that the RISC disclosed all the information that TILA demands, but Rojas contends that the disclosures were illusory—not “meaningful,” as TILA demands— because the parties' contract was… 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

1 2 3