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.

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 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

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

In Robinson v. Point One Toyota, Evanston --- N.E.2d ----, 2012 IL App (1st) 111889, 2012 WL 6725904 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2012), the Illinois Court of Appeal found that an automobile lease complied with Regulation M: [The Plaintiffs] maintain that, as a matter of law, their lease agreements violated the disclosure requirements of the CLR and Regulation M in that default… Read More

In Stevenson v. American Honda Finance Corp., 2012 WL 6672848 (D.N.J. 2012), Judge Pisano found no liability for an automobile finance company's acceptance of a RISC that contained a miscalculated "Credit Inquiry Fee". In May 2011, Plaintiff entered into a retail installment sales contract (the “RISC”) with non-party Honda Universe for the financed purchase of a 2009 Honda Civic.  The RISC, which… Read More

In Limtiaco v. Auction Cars.com, LLC, 2012 WL 4911726 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Du found that a car dealer’s failure to sell a vehicle at market price constituted a hidden finance charge under TILA, even though the RISC did not finance any part of the purchase. On July 24, 2010, Limtiaco entered into a Motor Vehicle Purchase Order and Federal Disclosure… Read More

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

1 2 3 4 5