TILA -- 15 U.S.C. § 1601

In Poulin v. Balise Auto Sales Inc., 2011 WL 2937210 (2d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that TILA is a disclosure statute, not a fair pricing law. The facts of the case were as follows: Balise operates car dealerships in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and advertises itself as a business that caters to the needs… Read More

In Kuenzi v. EuroSport Cycles, Inc., 2011 WL 1883052 (E.D.Pa. 2011), Judge O’Neill held that an affidavit setting forth policies to deliver TILA statements to consumers constituted adequate proof that TILA disclosures were given. In Kuenzi, the plaintiff obtained a loan from defendant Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. to purchase a motorcycle from EuroSport Cycles, Inc. and Don Murray d/b/a… Read More

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

In Salvagne v. Fairfield Ford, Inc., 2010 WL 3292967 (S.D.Ohio 2010), the District Court found that use of a “Spot Delivery” contract addendum allowing rescission in the event financing was not secured violated TILA.  The Court denied the dealer’s motion for summary judgment, explaining:   Here, the parties do not dispute that the disclosures made in the RISC satisfy TILA's… Read More

In Poulin v. Balise Auto Sales, Inc. 2010 WL 1370862 (D.Conn.), Judge Haight dismissed a TILA claim against a car dealer and it’s finance company assignee because it failed to state a claim.  The allegations were that   Balise and ACE have acted in concert in selling motor vehicles pursuant to retail installment contracts at inflated cash prices to consumers… Read More

In Anderson v. Frederick Ford Mercury, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 960423 (D.Del. 2010), Judge Robinson denied a Plaintiff Rucker damages for alleged ‘back-dating’ in a spot delivery situation, and granted summary judgment to the defendant automobile dealer.  Judge Robinson explained:    The TILA was enacted in order “to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the… Read More

In a decision deemed unpublishable, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Vinci Investment Company, Inc., 2010 WL 673267 (2010) that a claim brought by a credit union against a car dealer with whom it did business asserting wrongdoing in the assignment of retail installment sales contracts for automobiles might be covered by the dealer's insurance policy. … Read More

In Vallies v. SkyBank, -- F.3d --, 2009 WL 5154473 (3d Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a showing of detrimental reliance is required to recover actual damages for a TILA disclosure violation in a vehicle retail installment sales contract.  Vallies  involved, in a putative class action, whether a plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance in order… Read More

In Chastain v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp., 2009 WL 1971621 (S.D.Fla. 2009), Judge Hurley addressed whether an auto dealer violated TILA by engaging in a “spot delivery” and then repossessed the vehicle when third party financing did not materialize.  Judge Hurley found no TILA violation, explaining:   However, there is nothing in TILA or Regulation Z which prohibits financing contingencies in… Read More

Not California, but in Fitts v. King Richard’s Auto Sales, Inc. 2009 WL 256379 (D.R.I. 2009), Judge Lisi held that an automobile dealer properly disclosed trade-in negative equity by increasing the cash price of the vehicle purchased.  The Court explained:   The parties agree that Plaintiffs had negative equity in the Taurus.  TILA does not require that negative equity in… Read More

It's not an automobile case, but is interesting for statements of law applied.  In Galindo v. Financo Financial, Inc., 2008 WL 4452344 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge William Alsup required strict compliance with the CLRA's pre-filing notice requirement: California courts require “strict” compliance with Section 1782. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 40-41, 124 Cal.Rptr. 852 (1975). Plaintiffs filed the… Read More