Author: lfsuser

Michael Brewer v. Courtesy Chevrolet Center, and General Motors, LLC

San Diego County Case No. 37-2012-00100642-CA-CO-CT

This Complaint seeks relief on behalf of the following proposed class:

All consumers who purchased or leased a 2012 Equinox vehicle from a California dealership, for personal use to be registered in the State of California, at any time between January 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, and the vehicle was delivered to the consumer without the Chevrolet MyLink system.

Trial has not been set.

Learn More

Matthew Eklund v. Hidden Valley Investments, Inc. dba Quality Chevrolet, and General Motors, LLC

San Diego County Case No. 37-2012-00055351-CU-CO-NC

This Complaint seeks relief on behalf of the following proposed class:

All consumers who purchased or leased a 2012 Equinox vehicle from a California dealership, for personal use to be registered in the State of California, during 2011 or at any time between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2012, and the vehicle was delivered to the consumer without the Chevrolet MyLink system.

Trial has not been set.

Learn More

Finance Manage Admits Yo-Yo Financing to Stop Consumers from Shopping Around

Yo-Yo financing occurs when the dealer sells a vehicle, then unwinds the deal days or weeks later, telling the consumer that they could not get them financed. This article, written by a Finance Manager at a Georgia dealership for a dealer-industry magazine, shows their true motivation – to take a consumer “off the market” and stop them from shopping somewhere else.

http://www.fi-magazine.com/Blog/Mad-Marv/Story/2012/08/Unwinding-A-Deal.aspx?ref=-20120807&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter “Run Spot, Run: Many stores spot-deliver vehicles based on credit scores and deal structure for the sake of time. The goal is to take the customer out of the market as soon as possible to seal the deal, so the customer is asked to sign an immediate delivery agreement form outlining the deal. We can always re-contract if needed, right?”

Learn More

Buy Here Pay Here Dealers Sell the Same Car – Over and Over

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-boomerang-cars-20120815,0,5808680.story The practice of selling the same car multiple times is known as “churning.” Buy Here Pay Here dealers can charge interest rates topping 30% and demand large down payments. In some cases, churning can be used to boost profits. Dealers collect large down payments and then repossess quickly when customers default so that the vehicles can be offered for sale again.

The new findings come amid debate in Sacramento over three bills that aim to impose sweeping new regulations on the so-called Buy Here Pay Here industry. One of the pending bills, by Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), would prohibit Buy Here Pay Here lots from repossessing a car during a 10-day grace period after a payment is due. It also would cap interest rates at 17% plus the federal funds rate (currently at 0.25%). In addition, it would oblige dealers to use a third-party towing service when they take cars back, making repossessions more costly.

Learn More

Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement Agreement with Torrance Toyota and Western Members’ Services, LLC

On August 13, 2012, Honorable Kenneth Freeman granted final approval of the settlement agreement in Littlejohn v. DCH Torrence Imports, Inc. dba Torrence Toyota, and Western Members’ Services, LLC., Los Angeles County Case No. BC 453790. The Class identified in Ms. Littlejohn’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and signed backdated contracts. Ms. Littlejohn alleged Torrance Toyota would cancel contracts and have customers sign new contracts, and the new contracts would be dated the date of the customer’s original contract. Ms. Littlejohn alleged Torrence Toyota backdated contracts for customers who purchased vehicles between January 25, 2007, and January 25, 2011.

If this practice happened to you at Torrence Toyota, in Torrence, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via the contact form on the left.

Learn More

USMC Thanks the Auto Fraud Legal Center

Dear Mr. Smith:

SUBJECT: LETTER OF APPRECIATION

Thank you very much for sharing your expertise at the 2012 Marine CorpsInstallations West Legal Assistance Conference. Legal assistance is avaluable benefit to servicemembers and their families, and it is a criticalaspect of individual readiness, which is the cornerstone of unit readinessfor combat.

In my career as a Marine Officer, I have witnessed firsthand how personallegal issues can distract an otherwise outstanding Marine. Effective legalassistance can resolve these issues in a timely and effective manner. TheMarine Corps is fortunate to attract and retain talented young lawyers toserve as judge advocates in our legal assistance offices. However, they aregenerally young, inexperienced, and expected to contend with a broad range oflegal issues. No amount of raw talent can replace the value of trueexpertise. Through your valuable contribution of time and effort, you haveshared your expertise with these judge advocates and their staffs, therebymaking them more effective. In turn, they will provide better legalassistance to individual Marines and their families.

The benefit derived from your generous contribution will resonate longafter you made it. I am sincerely grateful for the time you spent preparingfor and teaching our judge advocates and paralegals. Our Legal AssistanceOffi.ces hope for your continued partnership and support in the future.

Sincerely,

P. J. UETZ

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps

Learn More

Consumer beats Midland Funding in Two Ways

Auto Fraud Legal Center obtained a victory over Midland Funding, LLC for Sue Zelenitz. Midland Funding sued Ms. Zelenitz for $7,948.58 based on a debt allegedly owed by Ms. Zelenitz to First Consumers National Bank. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00077880-CL-CL-CTL. Midland Funding, LLC claimed to own the debt allegedly owed to First Consumer National Bank. Ms. Zelenitz denied owing the debt and sued Midland Funding for violation of state debt collection practices law. On Ms. Zelenitz’s behalf, RBB filed motions with the Court that lead the court to rule that not only did Ms. Zelenitz not owe Midland Funding anything, but Midland Funding had to pay Ms. Zelenitz $5,831.90 in damages.

The history of this case starts back on February 13, 2008, when Midland Funding, LLC filed a lawsuit against Sue Zelenitz, alleging that Ms. Zelenitz owed it based on a debt allegedly owed to First Consumers National Bank. On August 28, 2009, the Court, at Midland Funding, LLC’s request, entered default judgment against Ms. Zelenitz, for $8,184.58, which was for $7,948.58 demanded in the Complaint and $236.00 for costs.

Ms. Zelenitz was supposedly served with notice of the lawsuit in San Diego. The problem with this was that Ms. Zelenitz had not lived in San Diego since 1995. At the time when Ms. Zelenitz was supposedly served with a copy of the lawsuit, she was living in Europe. Ms. Zelenitz learned of the lawsuit and judgment against her after she returned to the United States in June 2010.

Ms. Zelenitz hired RBB who was successful in getting the judgment set aside. RBB then set out to prove that Ms. Zelenitz did not owe Midland Funding anything, and that Midland Funding had violated the state debt collection practices law – the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On March 19, 2012, Honorable Ronald Styn, Judge of Superior Court, granted Ms. Zelenitz’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Midland Funding. Judge Styn ruled that Midland Funding violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by suing Ms. Zelenitz for a debt that it did not own. During the course of the lawsuit, and in opposition to Ms. Zelenitz’ Motion, Midland Funding could not produce any evidence proving that it own the debt that it claimed Ms. Zelenitz owed. The Court awarded Ms. Zelenitz $5,831.90 in damages.

On May 4, 2012, Judge Styn granted Ms. Zelenitz’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dismissing Midland Funding’s lawsuit against her. The Court ruled that since it had already determined in Ms. Zelenitz’s Motion for Summary Judgment that Midland Funding did not own the debt, there was no way that Midland Funding could prevail on its lawsuit against Ms. Zelenitz.

On June 6, 2012, the Court entered a Judgment against Midland Funding in Ms. Zelenitz’s favor.

On July 27, 2012, the Court granted RBB’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. RBB was awarded all of the attorneys’ fees that was requesting $70,049.25, plus a .5 multiplier of $35,024.62, for $105,073.87 total.

If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Greg Babbitt at the number above x 104 or fill in the Contact Us form.

Click here for a copy of the judgment and ruling on attorney’s fees.

Learn More

Capital One Agrees to Pay for Improper Repossessions

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department says Capital One has agreed to pay $12 million to resolve allegations the bank violated special protections in federal law for members of the military.
The government says Capital One wrongfully foreclosed on some homes and improperly repossessed some cars. In addition, the government says the bank obtained wrongful court judgments against some service members and improperly denied interest rate relief on some credit card and car loans.
In a settlement under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Capital One will pay at least $125,000 to each service member whose home was unlawfully foreclosed upon and at least $10,000 to each service member whose vehicle was unlawfully repossessed.
Capital One will provide $5 million to service members denied appropriate benefits on credit card accounts, auto and consumer loans.

Learn More

Dealers Across the Country Make Record Profits From Their Finance Departments

http://wardsauto.com/site-files/wardsauto.com/files/uploads/2012/07/UsaDe11_2012.pdf Galpin Ford (#1 on the list) made $17,053,723 in Finance and Insurance revenue on 9,527 total vehicles sold. This equals an average of $1,790.04 in F&I revenue per vehicle.

Strickland Chevrolet (#119 on the list) sold the least number of vehicles of any dealer on the list. They made $4,315,886 in Finance and Insurance revenue on 1748 total vehicles sold. This equals an average of $2,469.04 in F&I revenue per vehicle.

Learn More