Many repossession companies have been sued for allegedly violating people’s rights during repossessions, including on tribal land. If a repossession company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), then pursuant to that federal statute, it would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, and have to cover their legal fees and any costs

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor, two repossession companies, and a repossession agent. The repossession companies and the agent were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB.

The plaintiff alleged that she took out a loan with the creditor in order to finance the purchase of her vehicle and that by doing so, she granted the creditor a security interest in her vehicle. She alleged that when she began to fall behind on payments, the creditor hired a repossession company who then subcontracted a second repossession company to repossess her vehicle. The plaintiff also alleged that she lived at her mother’s house at the time of the repossession, which was located on an Indian reservation. The plaintiff alleged that the tribal land was governed by its own laws and that according to the reservation’s ordinance, a secured party could only repossess collateral on the reservation if they had the debtor’s written consent or a judicial order.

The plaintiff alleged that in April 2015, the repossession company and its agent entered the reservation in order to conduct the repossession. She alleged that they went to her mother’s house and after finding the vehicle parked in the driveway, they unlawfully repossessed it. The plaintiff alleged that the next morning, she woke up and realized that her vehicle was missing. After, she alleged that she reported the missing vehicle to the reservation’s police department who informed her that the repossession company told them that the creditor had authorized the repossession. The plaintiff also alleged that the repossession company left a phone number for her to call with the police, and that she called this number many times in order to try to find out where the vehicle was and how she could reclaim it.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company did not provide her with the opportunity to recover her personal items, like medical supplies and birthday gifts, that were inside of the repossessed vehicle. Additionally, she alleged that as a result of the repossession, she was left without a vehicle and could not transport her nephew to his medical appointments. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA, and that the repossession of her vehicle was unlawful because the defendants did not have the present right to repossess the vehicle since it was located on the reservation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants unlawfully entered tribal land to conduct the repossession and did not abide by laws that governed the reservation, thus removing their right to repossession.

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Eastern Division, a class action lawsuit was filed against two repossession companies and a creditor. The repossession companies were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Illinois state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:15-cv-08163.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she bought a vehicle from a retailer and entered into an installment contract. The plaintiff alleged that the retailer then assigned the contract to a creditor who financed the purchase and who obtained a security interest in the vehicle. She alleged that after she started missing her payments, the creditor hired a repossession company who then hired another repossession company to conduct a repossession. The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was repossessed on November 12, 2014 and that the defendants did not provide the required notice of the repossession to the police either before or after the repossession.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the creditor sent her three notices including a Notice of Right to Reinstate, a Notice of Plan to Sell the Property, and an affidavit. According to Illinois state law, a creditor must send a Notice of Right to Reinstate to a consumer within three business days of a repossession. However, the plaintiff alleged that the notice(s) she received was postmarked as November 26^th and that she did not physically receive them until December 1^st, which was after the three-day grace period.

The plaintiff also alleged that on the Notice of Right to Reinstate, the creditor indicated that she was owed $1,333.52 on her balance. However, she alleged that she did not owe this much money. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that on the pre-sale notice, the creditor stated that she owed $17,719.61 and that if she paid this amount back, she could reclaim her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that this was a false amount and was not what she truly owed on the agreement. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that these notices were confusing because she could not determine exactly how much she needed to pay in order to redeem the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the Notice to Reinstate indicated that she would have to pay $1,718.52, yet the pre-sale notice indicated that she would have to pay $18,104.81.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the affidavit of defense form she received did not provide a number for her to call. The plaintiff also alleged that she mailed back the affidavit to her creditor on December 15, 2014, which was less than 21 days after she received the form. She alleged that in Illinois, an affidavit has to be received by a lienholder less than 21 days after the date of mailing in order to stop the transfer of title and that if the affidavit is received in a timely manner, the lienholder has to apply to a court in order to determine possession rights. The plaintiff alleged that after she mailed the affidavit, she called the creditor in order to inquire about the status of her vehicle and was informed that the vehicle was sold on December 16, 2014. The plaintiff also alleged that the creditor told her that a deficiency balance remained and that interest continued to accrue on the amount. Furthermore, she alleged that she was never told how or where she could retrieve her personal items that were left inside of the repossessed vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA during the repossession because they did not have the legal right to repossess her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that by failing to notify the police of the repossession, the repossession companies’ right to repossession was removed and their behavior constituted an unfair debt collection practice.

What constitutes a violation of my rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to follow the laws of the state that the consumer lives in during the repossession process. If a creditor hires any third-party repossession companies, they must abide by the state’s respective repossession laws and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that provides legal protection to consumers against unlawful debt collection practices. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to first send the consumer a pre-repossession notice in order to lawfully repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, a repossession company is not allowed to breach the peace. A breach of the peace can include using physical force or violence, damaging property, and continuing with a repossession after verbal objections have been made; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, when conducting a repossession, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto an individual’s property without their permission. Repossession companies also are not allowed to repossess the wrong vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If the vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, the consumer may not have to pay the deficiency balance on their loan. If a repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages and cover their legal fees and any costs.

The post What to Know if Your Car is Repossessed? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and two repossession companies. The repossession companies were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:10-cv-02046-RHK-FLN.

The plaintiff alleged that in 2007, he entered into a credit agreement with the creditor in order to finance the purchase of his vehicle. He then alleged that he began to fall behind on his payments in December 2009. The plaintiff alleged that after missing his due dates for payments, the creditor allowed him to make late and partial payments for the loan and accepted two of his payments in the next month.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2010, the creditor hired a repossession company to repossess his vehicle. He alleged that this first repossession company then subcontracted the repossession to a second repossession company. The plaintiff alleged that despite accepting his late payments, the creditor did not send him what is called a Cobb notice. In Minnesota, if a creditor has accepted a debtor’s late or partial payments in the past, they have to provide the consumer with a Cobb notice before they are legally allowed to repossess a vehicle. This notice informs the consumer that they cannot make more late payments, provides them with a date to cure the overdue balance, and reaffirms that there needs to be compliance with the terms of the loan agreement.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2010, he was woken up by his neighbor who informed him that a tow truck was taking his vehicle from its spot in a secured garage. He then alleged that he followed the repossession agent to the side of a road where an argument occurred between the plaintiff and the agent. The plaintiff alleged that the police soon arrived at the scene and that the repossession agent lied to the police officers by claiming that the repossession agent was authorized to enter the parking garage by the property manager and therefore did not trespass or breach the peace. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were never given any permission to enter the garage and that the garage had clear “No Trespassing” signs attached to the property for the defendants to see. He then alleged that the repossession agent towed away his vehicle and completed the repossession.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession was unlawful because the defendants did not have the right to conduct the repossession since the creditor never provided him with a Cobb notice. He also alleged that the repossession breached the peace, and that the agent trespassed on private property. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the actions of the repossession companies were in violation of the FDCPA.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, another federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company and two creditors. The repossession company was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-00441-JRT-FLN.

The plaintiff alleged that in October 2013, she purchased a vehicle from one of the defendants. She alleged that after receiving her first billing statement from a creditor in regard to the loan financing for the vehicle, she signed up for the creditor’s website’s auto-payment service. However, the plaintiff alleged that the number for her bank account was unknowingly listed incorrectly so two of her subsequent payments were not posted.

The plaintiff alleged that in December 2013, an agent who was believed to be from the repossession company arrived at the plaintiff’s workplace and informed her that he was going to take her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that since she was unaware that her payments did not go through, she asked the agent why he needed to take the vehicle, to which the agent responded that he did not know the reason for the repossession. The plaintiff then alleged that the vehicle was with her daughter and not in her possession. She alleged that the repossession agent began to threaten her and say that he would call the police if she did not give the car to him. The plaintiff alleged that even though she tried to reason with the agent, he continued with his threats and eventually told her that he would come back to her workplace or house until he received the vehicle. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor in order to find out why the vehicle was being repossessed. She alleged that no one answered the phone so she just paid off the balances on the billing statements that she missed, which were accepted by the creditor.

The plaintiff alleged that the next day, she called the creditor in order to try to ensure that the situation would be fully resolved but that the representative she spoke with could not answer her questions. She also alleged that she called and left a message with the company where she had initially found the vehicle and applied for financing. The plaintiff then alleged that her daughter called her to inform her that a repossession agent was at their house making threats and demanding the vehicle. She alleged that the agent left their house after making more threats.

The plaintiff alleged that an employee from the initial company returned her call and informed her that she would only be able to keep her vehicle if she financed the loan with another creditor and paid additional fees. She alleged that the employee promised not to repossess the vehicle after she told him that she could not afford to pay those fees. The Plaintiff alleged that despite this promise, and despite the fact that she had already made the payments on the vehicle that just needed to be processed, her vehicle was repossessed the following day.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that when she called the same employee the next morning, he told her that she would need to pay the repossession fees in order to recover her vehicle. The plaintiff then alleged that she called her creditor who was unable to help her with the return of the vehicle. The plaintiff also alleged that the creditor still processed her payments even though it had already repossessed her vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company violated the FDCPA because it did not have the right to repossess her vehicle since the auto loan’s payment obligations were satisfied. Additionally, she alleged that the repossession company breached the peace during the repossession due to its use of threats, intimidation, and coercion.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to comply with the laws of the state that a consumer resides in during the repossession process. Any third-party repossession companies that are hired by the lender of a consumer’s auto loan must follow not only the consumer’s state’s respective state-specific repossession laws but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that protects consumers from unlawful debt collectors. Prior to a repossession, and depending on the state, a creditor may have to provide the consumer with a pre-repossession notice before it can legally repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, the repossession company does not have the right to breach the peace. Examples of a breach of the peace include using physical force, being violent, damaging a consumer’s property, and continuing with a repossession after the consumer verbally objects to it; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto a consumer’s property without the consumer’s permission to conduct a repossession on their property. It is also illegal for a repossession company to repossess the incorrect vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, such as a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If a consumer’s vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, it is possible that the consumer would not have to pay any deficiency balance on their loan. If the repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for repossessing a vehicle without first sending a Cobb notice when they were supposed to have sent one first? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor, a repossession company, and a repossession agent. The repossession company and its agent were sued for an alleged violation of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-00173-ADM-FLN.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she entered into a loan agreement and financed the purchase of her vehicle with the creditor. She alleged that she made a number of late and partial payments throughout the lifetime of the loan, which the creditor accepted. The plaintiff then alleged that in the summer of 2013, she fell behind on her final payments. She alleged that in October 2013, her creditor mailed her a letter which informed her of the default and her right to cure the default, but that she was unable to make the payments before the due date.

The plaintiff alleged that in November 2013, as she was leaving her house, she noticed that her garage door was open and that the light was on. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent opened and entered her garage in order to identify her vehicle. She alleged that as she was backing out of her driveway in her vehicle, she noticed that a car was blocking her driveway. The plaintiff alleged that she left her vehicle to approach the car but upon seeing the repossession agent exit the car and walk towards her, she returned to her vehicle and closed the door. She then alleged that the repossession agent entered into the back seat of her vehicle and stated that he was there to repossess her vehicle. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she told the agent that she would not give him the vehicle.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that as she tried to drive the vehicle back into the garage, the agent told her that he would call the police and claim that she was kidnapping him. The plaintiff alleged that upon hearing this, she stopped the vehicle, exited, and told the agent to leave the vehicle. She alleged that the repossession agent refused to exit the vehicle and that he eventually called 911 to request for the police to come to the scene. She also alleged that he called his dispatcher and requested for a tow truck to take the vehicle away. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent then called the police again to cancel his request but that she insisted for the police to come.

The plaintiff alleged that after a police officer arrived, she explained the situation to him and spoke with the repossession agent’s dispatcher. She alleged that the dispatcher informed her of the repossession company’s name and told her that the agent would follow proper repossession procedure in the future. Additionally the plaintiff alleged that the police officer told her that he could not interfere with the dispute because it was a civil matter. She alleged that shortly afterward, the repossession agent’s tow truck arrived and towed away her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the tow truck and police car obstructed the street and that many of her neighbors were watching over the course of the incident. The plaintiff alleged that because of the incident, she suffered a lot of emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation.

The plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor the next morning but that she was unable to get help because the office was closed for the weekend. The plaintiff also alleged that since she was left without having a means of transportation, she had to leave her children with her ex-husband for the weekend. She then alleged that she spoke with an employee of the creditor on the following Monday in order to discuss her account. She alleged that the employee told her that she would have to pay her full account balance plus repossession fees in order to receive her car back. She also alleged that the employee informed her that there was no way for her to receive the vehicle back immediately but that a “hold” would be placed on her account in order to prevent the vehicle from being auctioned off. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called the repossession company who told her that it still retained the vehicle and that there were also repossession fees that she had to pay to them. She alleged that as a result of the illegal repossession, she suffered monetary loss and needed to seek counseling.

The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle’s repossession was unlawful because the repossession company did not have the right to take the vehicle because she told the agent that she would not allow him to take the vehicle and had asked him to leave her property. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants breached the peace during the repossession, and that the repossession agent illegally trespassed onto her property and used threats against her.

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company for violations of the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00130-WMC.

The plaintiff alleged that he purchased a vehicle and financed its purchase with a non-party creditor who had a lien on the vehicle. He alleged that he fell behind on his loan payments in 2019 and that the creditor contracted with a repossession company in order to have a repossession conducted. The plaintiff then alleged that in January 2020, the repossession company went to his house in order to repossess the vehicle. He alleged that when he realized what was happening, he approached the repossession agent in order to protest the repossession. The plaintiff alleged that despite his verbal protests, the repossession agent still took his vehicle away.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession of his vehicle was unlawful because the repossession company breached the peace. He alleged that the defendant did not have a legal right to repossess his vehicle because he verbally protested the repossession.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to comply with the laws of the state that a consumer resides in during the repossession process. Any third-party repossession companies that are hired by the lender of a consumer’s auto loan must follow not only the consumer’s state’s respective state-specific repossession laws but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that protects consumers from unlawful debt collectors. Prior to a repossession, and depending on the state, a creditor may have to provide the consumer with a pre-repossession notice before it can legally repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, the repossession company does not have the right to breach the peace. Examples of a breach of the peace include using physical force, being violent, damaging a consumer’s property, and continuing with a repossession after the consumer verbally objects to it; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto a consumer’s property without the consumer’s permission to conduct a repossession on their property. It is also illegal for a repossession company to repossess the incorrect vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, such as a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If a consumer’s vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, it is possible that the consumer would not have to pay any deficiency balance on their loan. If the repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for continuing to repossess a vehicle despite having already been told to stop? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the Milwaukee Division, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and two repossession companies. The repossession companies were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01536-WED.

The plaintiffs in this case were a couple who alleged that they financed a vehicle’s purchase with a creditor and began to fall behind on their payments in 2018. The plaintiffs alleged that on the day of the repossession in September 2018, they woke up in the middle of the night to see repossession agents attempting to take their vehicle. They alleged that they saw their neighbors protesting on behalf of them, stating to the agents that they could not take the vehicle and that they must wait for the plaintiffs to come outside. The plaintiffs alleged that they agreed with their neighbors and that they were joining the protest when the repossession company repossessed their vehicle.

The plaintiffs alleged that the repossession companies violated the FDCPA because they did not have the legal right to take the vehicle since the plaintiffs protested the action. The plaintiffs also alleged that the repossession companies breached the peace since they continued with the repossession after verbal protests.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and two repossession companies. The repossession companies were sued for alleged FDCPA violations and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 0:11-cv-02229-JNE-LIB.

In this case, the plaintiffs were a couple who entered into a credit transaction in order to purchase a camper vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that based on the contract, they were required to make monthly payments but that they had made multiple late payments over the course of the loan which were accepted by their creditor. The plaintiffs also alleged that in 2007, they filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection and that this included the financing agreement for their camper vehicle. They alleged that during their bankruptcy proceedings, they reaffirmed the camper’s agreement and continued to make monthly payments to their creditor. The plaintiffs alleged that in January 2009, their petition was dismissed and that they continued on with their monthly payments. They then alleged that in March 2011, they authorized a check to be issued for that month’s payment. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that in April 2011, their creditor assigned their interest in the contract to another creditor (which was also a defendant in the case). The plaintiffs alleged that they were not given notice of this transfer nor were they told to make their payments to the new creditor.

The plaintiffs alleged that they sent their payment for that month to the original creditor who forwarded it to the new creditor. They alleged that this payment was late but that the new creditor accepted it nonetheless without enforcing its security interest or the terms of the contract. The plaintiffs also alleged that they made the next month’s payment on time and were current on their obligations at the time of the repossession.

The plaintiffs alleged that in June 2011, the new creditor contracted a repossession company, which then hired a second repossession company to repossess the camper. The plaintiffs alleged that even though they made repeated late payments that were regularly accepted by the creditor, they were not issued a warning notice regarding compliance to the agreement’s terms and a “right to cure” date. In Minnesota, this letter is known as a Cobb notice and a creditor must provide this notice to a consumer if they had previously accepted late payments, in order for a repossession to legally occur.

The plaintiffs alleged that on the day of the repossession, they parked their camper at a campground and that when they were away, a repossession agent seized the camper. They alleged that the agent damaged both the camper and the goods inside of the camper during the repossession. After, the plaintiffs alleged that they were informed of the repossession after an employee of the repossession company called them to tell them that they could pick up their personal items.

The plaintiffs alleged that the repossession of their camper was in violation of the FDCPA because the repossession companies did not have a present right to repossess the vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that they were up to date on their payments and were not in default and that they were not provided with a Cobb notice after their late payments were accepted by the creditor.

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit was filed against a repossession company for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act, as well as against a creditor for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The docket number for this case is Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00717-WMC.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that he financed the purchase of a vehicle with the creditor for personal use. He alleged that he fell behind on his payments in 2018 and that his creditor then hired a repossession company to repossess his vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that in August 2018, he was sitting in his vehicle – which was parked in a relative’s driveway – when an employee from the repossession company blocked him in the driveway. He alleged that the repossession agent demanded to repossess his vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that he told the repossession agent to stop the repossession but that despite his verbal protest, the repossession agent continued with the repossession process. The plaintiff then alleged that the employee of the repossession company threatened to call the police, in order to coerce the plaintiff into giving up his car. He alleged that after the police arrived and spoke to the repossession agent, he was allowed to leave with his vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the repossession company violated the FDCPA because the agent breached the peace by continuing the repossession even after the plaintiff made a verbal protest. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the repossession agent’s use of the police to assist in the repossession was also unlawful.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to comply with the laws of the state that a consumer resides in during the repossession process. Any third-party repossession companies that are hired by the lender of a consumer’s auto loan must follow not only the consumer’s state’s respective state-specific repossession laws but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that protects consumers from unlawful debt collectors. Prior to a repossession, and depending on the state, a creditor may have to provide the consumer with a pre-repossession notice before it can legally repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, the repossession company does not have the right to breach the peace. Examples of a breach of the peace include using physical force, being violent, damaging a consumer’s property, and continuing with a repossession after the consumer verbally objects to it; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto a consumer’s property without the consumer’s permission to conduct a repossession on their property. It is also illegal for a repossession company to repossess the incorrect vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, such as a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If a consumer’s vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, it is possible that the consumer would not have to pay any deficiency balance on their loan. If the repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for breaching the peace? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, a class action lawsuit was filed against a creditor, a repossession company, and multiple repossession agents. The repossession company and agents were sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and all defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she took out a loan with the creditor in order to purchase a vehicle. She alleged that the creditor had a security interest in the vehicle and that she was required to make monthly payments for the loan. She also alleged that over the course of the loan, she made several late and partial payments that her creditor had accepted. In the state of Minnesota, if a creditor has accepted late and partial payments from a debtor, the creditor must provide a debtor with a Cobb notice in order to conduct a lawful repossession. The notice informs debtors that they must strictly abide by the terms of the loan contract. The plaintiff alleged that her creditor never sent her a Cobb notice after accepting her late payments. She also alleged that in March 2015, she made another overdue payment which was again accepted by her creditor. She alleged that after making this payment, she began to fall behind on her monthly payments again.

The plaintiff alleged that her creditor hired a repossession company in order to repossess her vehicle. She alleged that in April 2015, a repossession agent entered her private property in order to gain access to her vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that once she saw him in her driveway, she came outside to ask him why he was there. The plaintiff alleged that the agent informed her that he was planning to repossess her vehicle and that she could not stop him because she had overdue payments. She then alleged that she asked the agent how much she could pay in order to keep her vehicle, to which the defendant replied that the repossession would occur regardless of how much she could pay. Afterward, the plaintiff alleged that she called her creditor in order to gain information about the situation. She alleged that while this call occurred, the repossession agent began to load her vehicle onto his tow truck and that shortly afterward, the repossession agent drove away with her vehicle.

The plaintiff alleged that a few days later, she spoke with an employee of her creditor who informed her that she would be able to continue making her monthly payments if she paid off the overdue balance that remained on her account. She also alleged that she asked the employee why they never sent her a Cobb notice or another warning letter to which the employee replied that the creditor was not legally required to provide any letters before the occurrence of a repossession. The plaintiff alleged that later in the day, she spoke with another representative of the creditor. She alleged that she also asked this second representative whether or not a Cobb notice was sent to her. The plaintiff alleged that the representative told her that neither a Cobb letter nor a “right to cure” letter was ever sent to her.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company and its agents committed an unlawful repossession of her vehicle because they did not have a present right to repossess her property. She alleged that because her creditor never provided her with a Cobb notice after accepting late payments, the repossession company did not have the legal right to conduct a repossession.

In the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, another federal lawsuit was filed against a creditor and a repossession company. The repossession company was sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA and both defendants were sued for alleged violations of Minnesota state law. The docket number for this case is Case No. 0:17-cv-00934-JRT-HB.

The plaintiff alleged that prior to her purchase of the vehicle, a third-party consumer entered into an agreement with a creditor for the vehicle’s purchase. She alleged that this vehicle was then purchased by another dealer who was given a clear title to the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that she purchased her vehicle from this dealer and entered into a loan agreement in order to finance the purchase. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the repossession, all of her monthly payments had been paid on time, and she was up to date on the account.

The plaintiff alleged that in February 2017, the creditor issued a repossession order for her vehicle and that it contracted a repossession company in order to conduct the repossession. She alleged that on the day of the repossession, she parked her vehicle on the third floor of her workplace’s parking ramp. The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company unlawfully repossessed her vehicle from where it was parked. She alleged that after she finished work, she walked to the parking area to find her vehicle missing. The plaintiff alleged that she called the police who informed her that her vehicle had been repossessed.

The plaintiff alleged that she contacted the dealer after speaking with the police, and that the dealer told her that they did not issue a repossession order and that all of her payments were made on time. She alleged that she then called the repossession company to determine what the reasoning was behind the repossession but that the company told her that she needed to contact her lender.

She then alleged that the repossession company told her that the original creditor of the vehicle was the lienholder and that they had issued the repossession order. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that she and her current lender called the repossession company who told them that they needed to resolve the situation with the original lender. The plaintiff alleged that the next day, her current lender spoke with the original lender and finally determined that the repossession was wrongfully committed. The plaintiff alleged that her vehicle was returned the same day. She also alleged that she contacted the original creditor in order to seek reimbursement, but that they never responded to her.

The plaintiff alleged that the repossession company wrongfully repossessed her vehicle because they used unfair or unconscionable means during the repossession. She also alleged that they had no present legal right to repossess her vehicle.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the repossession process?

A creditor has to comply with the laws of the state that a consumer resides in during the repossession process. Any third-party repossession companies that are hired by the lender of a consumer’s auto loan must follow not only the consumer’s state’s respective state-specific repossession laws but also the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law that protects consumers from unlawful debt collectors. Prior to a repossession, and depending on the state, a creditor may have to provide the consumer with a pre-repossession notice before it can legally repossess the vehicle. When conducting a repossession, the repossession company does not have the right to breach the peace. Examples of a breach of the peace include using physical force, being violent, damaging a consumer’s property, and continuing with a repossession after the consumer verbally objects to it; the act is illegal in all U.S. states.

In some states, it is illegal for a repossession company to trespass onto a consumer’s property without the consumer’s permission to conduct a repossession on their property. It is also illegal for a repossession company to repossess the incorrect vehicle. Depending on the state, a creditor may have to send the consumer a repossession notice, such as a pre-sale notice for the disposition of the vehicle, and/or a post-sale notice after the repossession has occurred. If a consumer’s vehicle was unlawfully repossessed, it is possible that the consumer would not have to pay any deficiency balance on their loan. If the repossession company violated the FDCPA, then pursuant to that federal statute, the repossession company would have to pay the consumer compensation of up to $1,000 in statutory damages, any actual damages, and cover their legal fees and any court costs.

The post Have repossession companies been sued before for violating people’s rights? first appeared on Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC.