Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Genesis Ordonez against Pedder Nissan. Ms. Ordonez alleges that Pedder Nissan improperly disclosed a deferred downpayment on the sales contract, a violation of California law. A deferred downpayment is a downpayment not made in cash on the day of the purchase. If you gave the dealership a check to be held for a few weeks, you may have an illegal sales contract.
Not only did Pedder Nissan improperly disclose the deferred downpayment, Pedder Nissan also had Ms. Ordonez sign a Hold Check Agreement. A Hold Check Agreement has payment terms that are different from your sales contract, a violation of California auto financing law.
Auto Fraud Legal Center believes Pedder Nissan’s illegal practices are widespread. In fact, AFLC filed a class action lawsuit against Pedder Nissan earlier this year. Want to see what other bad things Pedder Nissan has done to its customers? Click “Pedder Nissan” at the bottom of this post.
Did you sign a Hold Check Agreement for a deferred downpayment? Did you write a check that Pedder Nissan said it would hold for a few weeks? If so, contact the law office of Auto Fraud Legal Center for a free contract review to see if you have an illegal sales contract.
Learn MoreSacramento – Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski’s (D-Fremont) bill to require “Buy Here, Pay Here” lots to have window stickers disclosing the reasonable market value on their vehicles passed the state Assembly this afternoon 46-27 and now goes before the Governor.
“Buy Here, Pay Here” lots comprise a growing segment of the used car industry, focusing on high interest loans for people with poor credit. Too often, customers end up with overpriced cars and exorbitant interest rates. The industry also uses predatory lending and pricing practices with harsh default terms and swift repossession practices.
“The process of buying a car is already one often filled with anxiety,” Wieckowski said. “This bill, (AB 1534) would not dictate the sale price asked by the dealer, but it would help level the playing field by requiring the sticker. This gives the consumers more information as they consider whether or not to purchase a vehicle. In these difficult economic times, it’s especially important that consumer protection measures are in place to assist low-income families and our military personnel who are too often victims of predatory practices.”
New cars have displayed the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price on all new cars since 1958 with the passage of the federal Automobile Information Act.
Consumer groups are in strong support of increased regulations over the “Buy Here, Pay Here” lots. AB 1534 is supported by Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Consumer Federation of California, California State Commanders Veterans Association, Consumer Action, the Center for Responsible Lending and the Auto Fraud Legal Center.
Learn MoreSan 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 MoreSan 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 MoreYo-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 Morehttp://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 MoreOn 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 MoreDear 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 MoreAuto 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
ES
