Author: lfsuser

F&I Magazine Reports on Dealers Charged with Deceptive Advertising and Other Practices

Nineteen car dealerships nationwide were charged within a two-month span for deceptive advertising practices. The flood of complaints from consumers could result in harsh disciplinary action and further charges levied against dealers.

“For 2011, the number of complaints involving auto related issues went up dramatically; it’s now in the top 10 (complaints),” said Robin Thurston, staff attorney with the FTC. “We are certainly getting more complaints.” The following is a list of recent actions taken against dealers by state and federal regulators for deceptive advertising:

FTC Charges Dealers in South Dakota, North Carolina, Connecticut and West Virginia: In March, the FTC charged five car dealers in South Dakota, North Carolina, Connecticut and West Virginia with running advertisements that falsely promised to pay off trade-ins even if the customer still owed money on the vehicle. Posted to dealer websites and YouTube, these ads deceived consumers by making them think that they wouldn’t have to pay off the loan on their trade-in when, according to the FTC, the dealers rolled the negative equity customer’s new vehicle loan. Attorneys General in the four states have, consequently, given a lot of attention to issues with car dealerships in the past few months.

Advertised Sales Price Not Honored in Vermont: In May, 10 Vermont dealerships entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with Attorney General William Sorrell after his office charged them with not honoring their advertised sales prices. The dealers had to pay refunds to the consumers and one of the companies had to pay $16,000 in penalties to the state.

Massachusetts Dealership Charged With Deceptive Marketing: A family of three Massachusetts dealerships were ordered in May to pay a total of $225,000 in restitution, civil penalties and attorney fees because of deceptive marketing tactics, according to state Attorney General Martha Coakley. The operation was charged with advertising the dealer’s cost of vehicles for sale rather than the actual purchase price. Additionally, employees were charged with having customers sign incomplete documents which were later filled in with a higher price than negotiated. Employees also charged fees for unwanted or undisclosed F&I products and services. The dealership denied the wrongdoing but cooperated with the Attorney General’s office.

Claim Filed Against New Jersey Dealer for Not Disclosing Vehicle Damage: New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa’s office filed suit against a Paterson-based used-car dealership because it sold used vehicles without disclosing prior damage or use. The 51 identified used vehicles the dealership offered for sale had a total of more than $200,000 in damage that went undisclosed to consumers, according to a press release. The dealership also failed to include promised equipment, told customers the vehicles were covered by a warranty when there was none, and failed to disclose to consumers that the sales price didn’t include licensing, registration fees and taxes

Learn More

4 Rules for Getting a Car Loan

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/06/18/4-rules-for-getting-a-car-loan/ Know Your Credit Situation

Shop Around

Don’t Get Upsold

Avoid the Yo-Yo Trap

Learn More

Court Permits Class Action Against Maurice J. Sopp & Son and Chase Auto Finance Corp. to Proceed

On June 14, 2012, the Honorable Elihu M. Berle denied defendants’ demurrer to Aurelio Deniz’s claims on behalf of two proposed classes in Deniz v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC476936. The first class identified in Mr. Deniz’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Maurice J. Sopp & Son and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. The second class identified in Mr. Deniz’s lawsuit is all car buyers in California whose purchase contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees, and whose contracts are held by Chase Auto Finance Corp. Mr. Deniz alleges Sopp & Son made improper disclosures on contracts for customers who purchased vehicles between January 12, 2008, and January 12, 2012, and that Chase Auto Finance accepted such contracts from Sopp and other dealerships throughout California.

If any of these practices happened to you at Maurice J. Sopp & Son, in Bell, or any other dealership in California, or your contract was assigned to Chase Auto Finance Corp., 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 by filling out the contact form at the left.

Learn More

Federal Judge Remands Class Action Against Crevier BMW and BMW Finanial Services back to State Court

On June 11, 2012, the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford granted Shanna Kuxhausen’s Motion for Remand To State Court, after Defendant BMW Financial Services removed Kuxhausen v. Crevier Motors Inc., et al., Orange County Case No.30-2011-00504919-CU-CO-CXC, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The first proposed class identified in Ms. Kuxhausen’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Crevier BMW and signed backdated contracts. Ms. Kuxhausen alleges Crevier BMW would cancel contracts and have customers sign new contracts, and the new contracts would be dated the date of the customer’s original contract. The second class identified in Ms. Kuxhausen’s suit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Crevier and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. The third class identified in Ms. Kuxhausen’s lawsuit is all car buyers in California whose purchase contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees, and whose contracts are held by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC. Ms. Kuxhausen alleges Crevier BMW made improper disclosures on contracts for customers who purchased vehicles between August 30, 2007, and August 30, 2011, and that BMW Financial Services accepted such contracts from Crevier and other dealerships throughout California.

If any of these practices happened to you at Crevier BMW, in Santa Ana, or any other dealership in California, or your contract was assigned to BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, 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

Used Car Buying Tips from CARS

http://carconsumers.org/usedcarbuyingtips.htm 1. Either save your money and pay cash or join a local credit union and establish credit

2. Find the best cars in your price range

3. Decide what make, model and year of car is the best deal for you

4. Check online sites or local newspapers

5. Choose a car offered for sale by the owner

6. Check out the vehicle history

7. Inspect the car closely yourself

8. Have the car inspected by a reliable, trustworthy mechanic BEFORE you agree to buy

9. Check for safety recalls

10. AFTER the car checks out OK and the mechanic confirms that it’s safe to drive

11. Negotiate a fair deal

12. Complete the sale

Learn More

Shady Car Dealers Targeting Military Buyers

http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/31/11959202-shady-car-dealers-targeting-military-buyers?lite Holly Petraeus, director of the Office of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, warns military personnel to be on guard when they walk onto a car lot.

“You have these car places that spring up around military installations selling used cars for a very marked-up price and then putting high financing on top of that,” she says.

Military personnel can be especially vulnerable customers. They’re young. This may be their first car purchase. They often have a limited or negative credit history.

Learn More

Court of Appeal Reversed Trial Court’s Order Granting Haddad Dodge/Kia’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

After hearing oral arguments on the matter, on May 22, 2012, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and denied Haddad Dodge’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, in Barnes v. Bakersfield Dodge, Inc., Kern County Case No. S-1500-CV-271087 WDP, allowing the class action to proceed in court. The Court of Appeal found Haddad Dodge waived its right to compel arbitration because it began litigating the case and waited until six months before the scheduled trial date to file its motion. The class identified in the Barnes’ lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Haddad Dodge/Kia and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. Lyle and Karen Barnes allege Haddad Dodge made improper disclosures on contracts for customers who purchased vehicles between July 21, 2006, and July 21, 2010.

If this practice happened to you at Haddad Dodge, in Bakersfield, 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

Avoid auto fraud: When can sellers cancel a car dealership financed contract?

If you buy a car that is financed through the dealership, the dealer CAN cancel the contract, but only if it notifies you within 10 days of the date on the purchase contract. It is based on the language of the purchase contract. Look at your purchase contract. That’s the long yellow document that says “RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACT” at the top. Turn to the back of the purchase contract, and find the box that says “Seller’s Right to Cancel.” It is at the bottom of the second column.

California Buyers

Unsure on how to deal with a car dealership contract dispute and avoid auto fraud, contact the Dealer Fraud Lawyers at Auto Fraud Legal Center. Let our experience help you today.

Get in touch today!

Car dealers are in the business of selling cars to consumers, not financing cars that consumers buy. So, this box advises you that after you sign the purchase contract and leave with the car, the dealership is going to find a finance company or bank to buy your contract. This language gives a car dealer the opportunity to find someone to buy your purchase contract. Most of the time this is not a problem. However, if the car dealer cannot find someone to buy your purchase contract, it can cancel the purchase contract. But, the car dealer must notify you within 10 days of the date on the purchase contract. If it does not, then the purchase is final and cannot be cancelled. Every purchase contract relating to a car purchase in California that I have reviewed has included this provision in it, and our firm has seen thousands of purchase contracts.

If the dealership cancels within 10 days, you get your down payment or trade-in back. The purchase contract requires the car dealer to return to you all consideration (i.e., everything) given for the purchase. This includes your trade-in vehicle. If you gave a $2,000 down payment and a car as a trade-in, the car dealer must give you back both the $2,000 and the trade-in when you return the car you purchased.

Sometimes a car dealer may tell you that it already sold your trade-in, and will offer you the value of the trade-in as listed on the purchase contract. The language of the purchase contract does not appear to give the car dealer this option. It requires the return of the trade-in. However, if the car dealer does sell your trade-in, at the very least, you should tell the car dealer that it has to give you whatever is the highest value for your trade-in out of either (1) the value of the trade-in as listed on the purchase contract, (2) the fair market value, or (3) what the car dealer received when it sold your trade-in.

The car dealer CANNOT charge you for using the vehicle you purchased from them. For instance, it cannot charge you for the miles put on the car during the 10-day period. However, you are responsible for any physical damage to the car during the time it is in your possession.

If the car dealer exercises its right to cancel the purchase contract within 10 days, you are not required to sign a second contract to purchase that same car. Let me repeat this. A car dealer cannot force you to sign a second contract. If the car dealer cancels the purchase contract with 10 days, you are obligated to return the car, and the car dealer must give you back any down payment or trade-in that you gave with the purchase.

The car dealer cannot cancel the purchase contract after the 10-day period has expired. If a car dealer tries to do this, you should advise it that your understanding is that the car dealer is no longer entitled to cancel the purchase contract, and ask the car dealer to send you a letter explaining why it thinks it can still cancel the purchase contract.

Learn More

Court Denied Fremont Toyota’s Petition to Compel Arbitration

On May 8, 2012, the Honorable Steven A. Brick denied Fremont Toyota’s Petition to Compel Arbitration in Burton v. Fremont Automobile Dealership, LLC, Alemeda County Case No. HG12618098, allowing the class action to proceed in court. The first class identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and signed backdated contracts. Ms. Burton alleges Fremont 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. The second class identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and were automatically charged an Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee. Ms. Burton alleges that instead of giving customers the choice of whether to pay Fremont Toyota to electronically submit their registration information to the DMV, Fremont Toyota automatically charged its customers for this service, profiting on every deal. Finally, the third class of consumers identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit are those consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and signed a Debit Authorization Form. Ms. Burton alleges the Debit Authorization Form contains provisions in violation of California law. Ms. Burton alleges Fremont Toyota backdated contracts, automatically charged consumers an optional fee, and used illegal Debit Authorization Forms with customers between February 21, 2008, and February 21, 2012.

If any of these practices happened to you at Fremont Toyota, in Fremont, 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