In Thomas v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 23-10003, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79269, at *8 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2023), Judge Hood dismissed a TILA case filed by a car buyer. Plaintiff complains that she provided Defendant with a notice of recission with respect to her automobile loan on a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee. She brings her action under… Read More
In Bbbb Bonding Corp. v. Caldwell, No. A162453, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 1100, at *2-4 (Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2021), the Court of Appeal found that bail bond premium financing agreements are "consumer credit contracts". This appeal requires us to interpret a long-standing consumer protection statute in a novel context: whether the requirement under Civil Code section 1799.91 that notice… Read More
In Mount v. Peruzzi of Langhorne LLC, No. 21-2166, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157579, at *13-17 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2021), Judge Beetlestone allowed an ECOA claim to proceed, but not a TILA claim, for an automobile purchase spot-delivery situation gone wrong. The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Michelle Mount, a dental assistant in Philadelphia, wanted to buy a new… Read More
In Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet, No. 20-1944, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11183, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no TILA or FCRA violation by a car dealer in attempting to get a customer's car financed. The facts were as follows: In 2017, Brogan bought a used Subaru from Fred… Read More
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
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
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
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
In Gilliam v. Psg Ks, No. 18-56373, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, at *2-3 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a loan obtained by a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary remained a 'consumer credit transaction'. This case presents an issue of first impression under federal and state regulation of… Read More
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
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
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
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
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
In Rojas v. X-Motorsport, Inc., 2018 WL 734408, at *2–3 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 2018), the Court of Appeals held that a car dealer's rescission form did not violate TILA. Rojas's case is governed by Illinois law, which “mandates that when ‘different instruments are executed together as part of one transaction or agreement, they are to be read together and construed as constituting but… Read More
In Dixon v. General Motors Financial Corporation, 2018 WL 746379, at *4 (E.D.La., 2018), Judge Brown found that a TILA claim was not stated because any violation would have to appear on the face of the document and the Plaintiff had filed suit longer than 1-year after purchasing the vehicle. In Jackson v. Adcock, another division of this district held that… Read More
In Clarke v. West Palm Nissan, LLC., 2018 WL 521031, at *1–2 (S.D.Fla., 2018), Judge Rosenberg dismissed a TILA claim premised on a car dealers invocation of a right to cancel the transaction if and when financing could not be found. Defendant's Right to Cancel the Sale. Defendant's right to cancel appears in the sales contract, which is attached as… Read More
In Boseman v. Prestige Auto Sales, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-728, 2017 WL 3172742, at *2 (M.D.Tenn. July 25, 2017), Judge Collier granted summary judgment to a car buyer who's RISC failed to include a date for the final payment due under the RISC. The next issue the Court must address is whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the required TILA… Read More
In Rojas v. X Motorsport, Inc., 2017 WL 2404953, at *3–4 (N.D.Ill., 2017), Judge Feinerman granted a summary judgment to a car dealer against whom a TILA claim was filed. The parties agree that the RISC disclosed all the information that TILA demands, but Rojas contends that the disclosures were illusory—not “meaningful,” as TILA demands— because the parties' contract was… Read More
In Raceway Ford Cases, the California Supreme Court found that a car dealer did not violate the AFSA in backdating a RISC to the date of sale when financing could not be found after a spot-delivery. The Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), also known as the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.) is… Read More
