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

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.

District Court (Fla.) Says TILA Governs Disclosure, Not “Predatory Lending”

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Tenn.) Says Irregular Payment Schedule Disclosure for Purchase of a Vehicle Violated TILA

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Conn.) Says TILA Does Not Act Where Disclosures Are Conspicuous; Oral Representations to the Contrary Notwithstanding

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

Court of Appeal (Ill.) Dismisses Vehicle Purchaser’s TILA Claim Against Dealer; Says Vehicle’s “Cash Price” Under TILA Is Not the Sticker Price, But the Agreed Upon Price

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Pa.) Says Spot-Delivery Situation With Multiple Contractual Re-Writes Did Not Violate TILA

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Ill.) Says Credit Card Issuer Properly Treated Plaintiff’s Purchase of Cryptocurrency as a “Cash-Advance” Rather than a “Purchase of Goods”

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Mich.) Says TILA Claim Remains Where Plaintiff Claims that She Signed Blank RISC; Says No Fraud Claim May Lie Where Plaintiff’s Reliance Was Unreasonable

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Mich.) Says Car Dealer Might Have Had to Include GAP Cost in Finance Charge if GAP was Mandatory, But Dealer Did Not Violate TILA By Back-dating RISC

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

District Court (Cal.) Says Car Dealer’s Exercise of Right to Cancel Clause in Standard Form RISC Does Not Violate TILA

by Scott J. Hyman |

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

1 2 3 … 5