Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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 Dillard v. Thomasville Auto, 2016 WL 6471928--- F.Supp.3d ---- (M.D.N.C. 2016), Judge Schroeder found that disjointed printing on a RISC did not constitute a TILA violation. The court finds that in this case no reasonable consumer would interpret the disclosure form in the manner Dillard argues, and it would not be reasonable and equitable to do so. The construction… Read More

In Harold v. TMC Enterprises, LLC, 2016 WL 6069023 (W.D. Va. 2016), Judge Moon held that a car buyer adequately pleaded a TILA violation due to an inflated purchase price of the vehicle where the buyer also alleged that the finance price of a vehicle is higher than its cash price. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the TILA by failing… Read More

In Yancy v. America's Preowned Selection, LLC, 2016 WL 4150927, at *2 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment in favor of a car dealer because the Plaintiff had created a factual question regarding whether the dealer violated TILA's presentation requirement. Appellants argue that the district court erred by interpreting their 15 U.S.C.… Read More

In Morales v. Barberino Brothers, Inc., 2016 WL 2626826, at *4-7 (D.Conn., 2016), Judge Haight dismissed a TILA claim brought by a consumer against a car dealer who inflated the car's purchase price to account for the vehicle that the customer traded in. Two provisions of TILA are at issue. Section 1638(a)(2)(B) requires in certain instances that a creditor provide a… Read More

In Pettye v. Santander Consumer, USA, Inc., 2016 WL 704840, at *3-4 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge St. Eve dismissed a TILA claim filed against an auto finance company because the disclosures regarding GAP complied with TILA or any violations were not apparent on the face of the disclosure statement.   An assignee is liable only where the TILA violation appears on… Read More

In Gregory v. Metro Auto Sales, Inc., 2016 WL 336861, at *2-3 (E.D.Pa., 2016), Judge McHugh found that a car dealer who allegedly inflated the purchase price of automobiles to offset inflated trade-in credits the dealer gave to the purchasers did not violate TILA. Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Congress adopted… Read More

In Pannetta v. Milford Chrysler Sales Inc., 2015 WL 1296736 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Pappert found no TILA liability against a holder of a vehicle RISC, despite the egregious facts pleaded.  The facts alleged were as follows. The events giving rise to this suit began when Pannetta received a mail solicitation from Milford and MOA. (FAC ¶ 14.) The solicitation stated that Pannetta… Read More

In Durocher v. Westborn Chrysler Jeep Inc., 2014 WL 5162384 (Mich.App. 2014), the Michigan Court of Appeal found in an unpublished case that a Plaintiff could state a case through trial for violation of state law by concealing negative equity in the purchase price of a vehicle notwithstanding representations to the contrary. Durocher testified that Westborn represented that he would… Read More

In Raceway Ford Cases, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 4589808 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding in favor of defendant car dealer as to backdating claims, but remanded to the trial court to determine whether the action could still be maintained as a class action.  The Court of Appeal's decision is important because of its… Read More

1 2 3 4 5