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 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

1 3 4 5