CALL FOR A LEGAL CONSULTATION(410) 583-8000

2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment

A customer’s AMKO Auto complaint resulted in AMKO Auto of Waldorf, Inc. (“AMKO Auto”) paying a $57,563 judgment to Whitney, LLP’s client after prevailing on claims of Fraud and violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act.  Our client, age 66, is an African American Vietnam Veteran and retired federal government worker who simply went to AMKO Auto to purchase a used vehicle he found online.  He had a terrible experience and felt he was badly taken advantage of.

As discussed below, our client’s AMKO Auto complaint arose after he was tricked into trading in two cars, and receiving only a $500  trade-in credit for the first one.  In other words, he was tricked into trading in a second car, and giving the title and keys for that second car to AMKO Auto’s manager, who then kept the car and later sold it. Our client did not receive any trade-in credit from AMKO Auto for the second trade in.

Once our client realized he had been cheated, he called AMKO Auto.  Our client testified that he was laughed at and then ignored.  Our client then searched Google to find a lawyer to help with his AMKO Auto Complaint, and found Whitney, LLP.  Whitney, LLP then filed a lawsuit against the dealer and later agreed to arbitrate with an experienced judge.  

Although AMKO Auto denied liability, the Arbitrator agreed with Whitney, LLP and found that AMKO Auto, through its manager, had perpetrated a “fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practice” on our client.

There are two other AMKO car dealerships operating at AMKO Auto Laurel, 3520 Laurel Fort Meade Rd Laurel, MD 20724, and AMKO Auto Temple Hills, Maryland, 4732 St Barnabas Rd Temple Hills, MD 20748.

Whitney, LLP offers Free Claim Evaluations for victims of car dealers.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

amko auto complaints - 2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment

Whitney, LLP Represents Car Buyers with AMKO Auto Complaints

If you bought a car from AMKO Auto and have AMKO Auto Complaints, call Whitney, LLP.

Whitney, LLP represents car buyers with AMKO Auto Complaints and complaints against other car dealers, including in Laurel, Maryland and Temple Hills, Maryland.  We have brought lawsuits and arbitrations against many of the new and used car dealers in Maryland. 

Whitney, LLP’s car dealer fraud lawyers have experience fighting back against dishonest car dealers in a variety of claims.  We help our clients obtain compensation, unwind car deals, recover down payments and take legal action to make things right.

Beginning of the AMKO Auto Complaint – Looking for a Used Car

Our client’s initial interaction with AMKO Auto occurred when he drove by one of their locations and spotted a Dodge Super Bee classic muscle car that he liked. He went in and engaged in discussions with AMKO Auto’s manager. 

Although he arrived in his 2008 Jaguar, his intention was to trade in his old 2005 Buick Rendezvous for a newer vehicle. He testified that AMKO Auto’s manager told him he could not finance the Dodge Super Bee due to its age, redirecting his attention to a 2014 Jaguar.  Our client, who likes Jaguars, was convinced by AMKO Auto’s manager to purchase the 2014 Jaguar instead of the car he was initially interested in.

Despite not intending to trade in his 2008 Jaguar, our client was convinced by AMKO Auto’s manager that trading in both his cars was necessary to secure the desired monthly payment for the new Jaguar he was going to buy.  

Our client testified at the arbitration hearing that he told AMKO Auto’s manager that he did not have his glasses, and that the manager then told him to sign in the highlighted areas.  He testified that, trusting AMKO Auto’s manager’s guidance, our client signed the contract without his glasses. He also testified that he remembered a piece of paper being put over one page while he was signing.

As part of the purchase process, our client testified he was told to go get the title to his 2008 Jaguar and bring it back to AMKO Auto’s manager, which he did, along with the keys to the2008 Jaguar and the car itself.

AMKO Auto Laurel 3520 Laurel Fort Meade Rd Laurel MD 20724 - 2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment

Client Testified He was Ignored and Laughed at by AMKO’s Employees

After purchasing the 2014 Jaguar from AMKO Auto, our client began to have mechanical problems with the car he had just purchased.  He was not happy with how the mechanical problems were being handled by AMKO Auto and then reviewed his sale paperwork. 

Upon reviewing his sales documents, our client discovered that the 2008 Jaguar he was told he had to trade in was not listed on any sales documents. 

He became upset and concerned once he realized that he had not received any trade-in credit from AMKO Auto for trading in his second car.

He called AMKO Auto numerous times and asked what happened to his second trade in.  He testified he was treated arrogantly, laughed at and hung up by AMKO Auto’s employees.

Whitney, LLP Hired to Represent Car Buyer in AMKO Auto Complaint

Once our client was laughed at and ignored by AMKO Auto’s manager, he searched Google and found the car dealer fraud lawyers of Whitney, LLP. 

After speaking with our client and reviewing his documents, it was obvious that something had gone very wrong and that he had not received compensation for the second trade in.  It also appeared that our client had been taken advantage of due to his age.

Whitney, LLP Investigates AMKO Auto Not Paying for the Trade In

Our investigation included running a CarFax that showed the 2008 Jaguar had been retitled in Virginia shortly after our client was tricked in providing it to AMKO Auto’s manager.  

We then obtained a Virginia title history.  The title history revealed that the 2008 Jaguar had been titled in AMKO Auto’s manager’s name with a sales price of $4,000, and then subsequently transferred to another individual for a purported price for $1,700.  

Our research indicated the value of the 2008 Jaguar at the time our client was cheated out of it was approximately $11,000.  

AMKO Auto’s Defense to Avoid Responsibility Failed

AMKO Auto owner testified that AMKO Auto was the victim of its “rogue” manager, and that AMKO Auto was also a victim of its manager’s deceptive actions.  AMKO Auto owner also argued it was not liable for any of our client’s losses. However, if a business could always argue that they were not responsible for the actions of their employee, it would be impossible to hold any business accountable.  

The legal reality, which AMKO Auto appeared to ignore during the course of the entire case, is that a business is responsible for the actions of its employee that are taken within the scope of that employee’s responsibilities.  A business is responsible for the representations made by their employee or agent in connection with the scope of that employee’s responsibilities.

amko auto judgment - 2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment

Arbitrator Finds Fraud and Unfair and Deceptive Conduct by AMKO Auto

The Arbitrator found that AMKO Auto perpetrated fraud and an unfair or deceptive trade practice against our client.  The Arbitrator found that AMKO Auto violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by doing so. The Arbitration Award can be reviewed here.

  1. Fraud Against AMKO Auto – The basis for the Arbitrator’s finding that AMKO Auto perpetrated fraud against our client was its manager’s actions and misrepresentations in deceiving our client.  The arbitrator found there was no corporate intent, apart from its employee’s intent.
  2. Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act – Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices against AMKO Auto – The basis for the Arbitrator’s finding that AMKO Auto violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act against our client was its manager’s actions and misrepresentations in deceiving our client. 

$57,563 Awarded for Monetary Loss and Emotional Distress

$11,313 was awarded for financial losses.  The Arbitrator found that the financial loss was determined to be the value of the 2008 Jaguar at the time of the trade-in, which was $11,313.

$15,000 was awarded for emotional distress.  The Arbitrator found that the emotional distress caused by the incident deeply affected our client, resulting in feelings of embarrassment and ongoing upset for over a year.  AMKO Auto Complaint – Pays Whitney, LLP’s Attorney’s Fees

$31,250 was awarded for attorney’s fees and costs.  The Arbitrator found that Whitney, LLP’s attorney’s fees incurred in representing our client were reasonable and necessary and that AMKO Auto had to pay the arbitration fee of $1,250.

AMKO Auto Initially Refuses to Pay $57,563

In total, the Arbitrator awarded $57,563 against AMKO Auto, including the award to our client and attorney’s fees.  However, AMKO Auto refused for over 90 days to voluntarily pay that amount and attempted to negotiate payment of a lesser amount.  Our client was not willing to negotiate at this point.

In order to force AMKO Auto to pay the $57,563 that the Arbitrator awarded, Whitney, LLP filed the necessary documents with the Circuit Court of Charles County, including the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.  The Court granted our Petition, and then entered the Notice of Recorded Judgement totaling $57,563.

lawyer for amko auto complaints - 2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment

AMKO Auto Finally Pays After Sheriff Goes to the Dealership

It was not until a Sheriff went to AMKO Auto’s dealership to execute the Writ of Garnishment that AMKO Auto finally paid.  Had AMKO Auto not paid, a Sheriff would have seized the cash at the dealership, and prevented AMKO from selling any vehicles, with that inventory to be sold at auction to satisfy the judgment.

Without being to sell any vehicles, a car dealer will have financial problems.  It was the threat of being prevented from selling any more vehicle that finally forced AMKO Auto to pay the judgment awarded against it.

AMKO Auto Sues Their Own Ex-Manager

AMKO Auto ended up filing a lawsuit against their own ex-manager who they blamed for deceiving our client.  They did so in order to recover the money from their manager for the money that AMKO Auto had to pay to our client.

Nonetheless, AMKO Auto was and is responsible for the actions of their owners, managers, salespeople and agents for the actions taken towards customers within the scope of their employment role.

AMKO Auto Settlement Attempts Had Failed

As with many cases involving other car dealers, reasonable efforts to settle the case were made early on.  The early settlement efforts were designed to make our client whole, and cover the value of the second trade in.

However, AMKO Auto denied responsibility and did not respond to these early efforts in a way that was considered reasonable by our client, or by Whitney, LLP.

In other words, AMKO Auto could have resolved the case for much less than $57,563, but chose not to, and forced our client to hire Whitney, LLP bring legal action.

AMKO Auto Complaints – Online Reviews

Online Reviews for AMKO dealers can be viewed below.

AMKO Auto Reviews – Yelp

AMKO Auto Review Better Business Bureau (BBB)

AMKO Auto Reviews Google

daniel whitney jr daniel whitney sr - 2023 AMKO Auto Complaint Results in $57,563 Win and Judgment
Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. of Whitney, LLP

Whitney, LLP – Lawyers for AMKO Auto Complaints

If you have AMKO Auto Complaints or feel you have a claim against AMKO Auto, contact Whitney, LLP for your Free Case Evaluation.  

Whether you purchased a vehicle at AMKO Auto Laurel, Maryland, 4732 St Barnabas Rd Temple Hills, MD 20748, if you have questions or concerns about your purchase, call Whitney, LLP.

Whitney, LLP has years of experience fighting back against new and used Maryland dealerships on a variety of claims that involving down payments, trade-ins, pay offs, pricing, illegal fees, financing problems, repossessions, representations and the behavior of dealer employees.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues. 

Prior results are not a guarantee of future results, and all cases are different.

Read More

Beware Car Dealer Police Impersonation and Harassment

Car dealer police impersonation occurs when a dealer employee impersonates police.  The law firm of Whitney, LLP represents consumers who are victims of car dealer police impersonation and car dealer harassment.

This blog discusses a case in which Whitney, LLP represents a consumer who was victimized when a Maryland used car dealer impersonated a police officer. The car dealer’s General Manager sent a text message impersonating a police officer with the Baltimore County Police to try and to scare their customer into returning a car.

Police impersonation is a crime.

If you have been the victim of a car dealer impersonating police or harassed by a car dealer, you have legal rights and may be able to recover compensation for economic loss and emotional distress. 

We offer Free Legal Evaluations. 

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case. 

car dealer impersonates police 1200 × 628 px 1024x536 - Beware Car Dealer Police Impersonation and Harassment

The Car Deal Before Police Impersonation and Harassment

In May 2022, our client went to a Maryland used car dealer and agreed to purchase a vehicle.  He signed a finance contract and made a $1,000 down payment.  At the time, the dealer did not disclose to him that financing was not complete. 

Our client left the dealership with the vehicle and believed that he was good to go.

Dealer Tries to Cancel Transaction Without Returning Down Payment

Several days after the purchase, an employee of the used car dealer called him and insisted that he return to the dealership to complete documentation.  When he returned, he was told that he needed a co-signer. 

When he explained that he did not have a co-signer, the employee told him that financing had fallen through and he needed to return the vehicle.  Our client agreed to return the vehicle as long as his down payment would be returned, which is his right under Maryland’s Spot Delivery Law.

However, the dealer refused to provide his down payment to him, and our client drove away in the vehicle.

General Manager Impersonates Baltimore County Police Officer Police via Text Message

Shortly after leaving the dealership, our client received a text message stating “This is Ofc. Muclaster with Baltimore County Police before I process this report you need to return the vehicle to NAME OF USED CAR DEALER”.  

See the actual text message the General Manager sent to our client (the complete phone number and name of the Maryland used car dealer has been redacted for the time being):

​​

Car Dealer Impersonates Police 683x1024 - Beware Car Dealer Police Impersonation and Harassment

The police impersonation was later confirmed by Whitney, LLP’s private investigator, who identified the owner of the phone number and the text’s sender as the General Manager of the dealership.

Car Dealer Calls Customer’s Employer and Says Car Was Stolen

The turmoil didn’t end there. An individual identifying herself as being with “Baltimore County Investigations”  called our client’s employer, falsely claiming the vehicle had been reported stolen.  This caused further emotional distress and problems for our client.

Car Dealer Illegal Debt Collection Practices

In Maryland, all debt collectors, including car dealers, are prohibited from engaging in illegal debt collection activities.  

However, dealers often engage in illegal collection methods.

The Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“CDCA”) prohibits any debt collector from engaging in following abusive practices:

In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt a collector may not:

(1) Use or threaten force or violence;

(2) Threaten criminal prosecution, unless the transaction involved the violation of a criminal statute;

(3) Disclose or threaten to disclose information which affects the debtor’s reputation for credit worthiness with knowledge that the information is false;

(4) Except as permitted by statute, contact a person’s employer with respect to a delinquent indebtedness before obtaining final judgment against the debtor;

(5) Except as permitted by statute, disclose or threaten to disclose to a person other than the debtor or his spouse or, if the debtor is a minor, his parent, information which affects the debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information;

(6) Communicate with the debtor or a person related to him with the frequency, at the unusual hours, or in any other manner as reasonably can be expected to abuse or harass the debtor;

(7) Use obscene or grossly abusive language in communicating with the debtor or a person related to him;

(8) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist;

(9) Use a communication which simulates legal or judicial process or gives the appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental agency, or lawyer when it is not;

(10) Engage in unlicensed debt collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act; or

(11) Engage in any conduct that violates §§ 804 through 812 of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202.

Car dealer illegal debt collection often occurs when a car dealer simply wants a consumer to do something, such as return a vehicle or pay more money, but they have no legal basis to make the customer do so. In these situations, it is not uncommon that car dealers threaten consumers with police involvement, harassing phone calls, constant text messages and other methods that consumers do not like.

When a car dealer engages in harassing behavior to try a force a consumer to do something, that consumer has legal rights and may be able to sue the car dealer and recover compensation.

Lawsuit Filed After Car Dealer Impersonates Police

After enduring the car dealer’s illegal and abusive practices, our client searched for a lawyer to sue a car dealer, and found Whitney, LLP.  Whitney, LLP filed a lawsuit was filed that included allegations the dealer had violated the following laws:

  1. Maryland’s Spot Delivery Law – the dealer failed to provide required notices that financing was not approved, and refused to return the down payment at the time our client returned the vehicle.
  2. Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act – the dealer engaged in abusive debt collection practices including impersonating police, harassing our client and calling his employer.
daniel whitney jr daniel whitney sr - Beware Car Dealer Police Impersonation and Harassment
Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. of Whitney, LLP

Attorneys for Car Dealer Police Impersonation and Harassment – Whitney, LLP

The attorneys of Whitney, LLP have experience representing consumers in claims against car dealers.  We have represented hundreds of consumers who purchased cars in Maryland or whose cases have a Maryland connection. 

From used car dealers to the some of the largest dealers in the United States, we help consumers fight back against police impersonation, harassment, deception, fraud and other unfair practices.

If you have been harassed by a car dealer, call Whitney, LLP. We offer Free Legal Evaluations.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.  Prior results are not a guarantee of future results, and all cases are different.

Whitney, LLP YouTube Video On Car Dealer Police Impersonation

The following YouTube video made by Whitney, LLP further describes this case.

Read More

2023 Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy Settlement

In August 2019, a Maryland resident unknowingly fell victim to odometer fraud and mileage discrepancy during their search for a trustworthy used vehicle, ultimately discovering a 2016 Ford Explorer advertised on a Maryland Nissan dealer’s website. With an odometer reading of 30,082 miles, the buyer decided to visit the dealership to further explore this option.

Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy Not Disclosed During Purchase

Upon test-driving the vehicle and negotiating with the dealership, the buyer agreed to purchase the vehicle, making a $1,000 down payment and financing the remaining balance through a lender. The Maryland Nissan dealer provided a Retail Purchase Agreement, leaving the “Odometer Reading” section blank and neglecting to check the “Not Accurate” box. 

The potential buyer had no way of knowing of the odometer fraud and mileage discrepancy that awaited his discovery years down the road.

Odometer Fraud Discovered During Trade-In Attempt

The buyer refinanced the loan through another lender in February 2021. Months later, in November, they attempted to trade in the vehicle at another local dealership, only to be informed that the odometer had been rolled back, reducing the vehicle’s value and rendering it largely unsellable.

While it may be surprising to some, odometer fraud is on the rise, likely due in part to the boom in used car prices during COVID, which created a huge incentive for dishonest sellers to rollback mileage to obtain illegal profits.

odometer fraud and mileage discrepancy 1024x768 - 2023 Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy Settlement

CarFax Reveals Mileage Discrepancy

The local dealership provided a CarFax report revealing mileage discrepancy dating back to June 7, 2019. Prior to that date, the CarFax reported an odometer reading of 37,797 miles; however, the reading later decreased to 30,775 miles. 

The Maryland Nissan dealer did not disclose the odometer rollback, although the buyer believed that they were aware of that information at the time they sold the vehicle.

Confrontation and MVA Complaint Filing

The buyer confronted the Maryland Nissan dealer regarding the odometer discrepancy, and the dealership blamed the previous owner for tampering with the odometer. The  Maryland Nissan dealer refused to repurchase the vehicle or accept responsibility. The buyer then filed a complaint with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA).

The MVA Report concluded that the Maryland Nissan dealer violated COMAR Regulation 11.12.01.19 A(1) &B for “Odometer Fraud.”The MVA Report stated that a diligent dealership should have been aware of the odometer discrepancy and disclosed it appropriately.

Consequences of the Maryland Nissan dealer’s Mileage Discrepancy

The customer called Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers for help with the odometer fraud and mileage discrepancy.  Whitney, LLP was retained by the customer to recover compensation.  

Our analysis of the case began with the fact that a used vehicle with unknown mileage and tampered odometer is significantly less desirable to consumers and holds a much lower value than an otherwise comparable vehicle with accurate mileage.

condo disclosure of structural damage 1024x768 - 2023 Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy Settlement

Lawsuit Filed for Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy

Whitney, LLP’s attorneys made efforts to resolve the case with the Maryland Nissan dealer prior to filing a lawsuit.  However, our efforts were ignored, leaving no choice but to file a lawsuit against the Maryland Nissan dealer. 

Shortly after filing the lawsuit, lawyers for the Maryland Nissan dealer contacted Whitney, LLP.  Settlement discussions began.

We have found that it is usually necessary to file a lawsuit against a car dealer in order for any sort of reasonable settlement to take place.

Without filing a lawsuit, the consumer has almost no leverage to force the dealer to take responsibility for their actions. Once a lawsuit is filed, the dealer must hire its own attorneys and defend, or the consumer can seek a default judgment.

Compensation for Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy

After negotiations with counsel for the Maryland Nissan dealer, compensation was recovered for our client and the matter was settled.  Compensation was recovered for:

  1. To cover the difference in what the vehicle is worth due to the odometer fraud and mileage discrepancy, and what it would be worth as a normal vehicle without those problems;
  2. Compensation for emotional distress of our client for the stress he felt as the result of being placed in this unpleasant position and sold the undesirable vehicle; and
  3. The Maryland Nissan dealer paid Whitney, LLP’s attorney’s fees.
daniel whitney jr daniel whitney sr - 2023 Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy Settlement
Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Sr.

Lawyer for Odometer Fraud and Mileage Discrepancy

If you purchased a vehicle in Maryland and need a lawyer for mileage discrepancy or odometer fraud, call Whitney, LLP.  Whitney, LLP’s consumer attorneys have helped and represented hundreds of consumers in claims against almost all of the dealer groups in Maryland in a variety of claims involving vehicle sales, from false advertising, to missing features, forgery, illegal interest charges, fake CPO designations and odometer fraud.

We have experience suing car dealers and fighting for consumers’ rights and compensation.

We offer Legal Consultations. 

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.  Prior results are not a guarantee of future results, and all cases are different.

Read More

Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Passport Automotive Group paid $3.3 Million to the FTC to settle claims of illegal dealer fees and racial dealer discriminatory practices.  The FTC Complaint sets forth the allegations in detail, and is a great read to understand the practices that many dealerships may engage in on a daily basis.  This FTC article summaries the fine and provides more information about the alleged illegal practices.  Passport Automotive Group denies all liability and the FTC allegations.

Passport Auto dealerships in Maryland include:

  • Passport Toyota,
  • MINI of Montgomery County,
  • Passport BMW,
  • Passport INFINITI of Suitland,
  • Passport Mazda, and
  • Passport Nissan.

If you purchased a car from any Passport Dealership in Maryland, call Whitney, LLP for a free contract review. 

You may have been subjected to the illegal fees or racial dealer discrimination that the FTC alleged Passport charged its customers. We can provide a lawyer to help for problems with car dealers in Maryland. 

Here is our YouTube Channel  for more information and videos on illegal car dealer practices.

dealer discrimination 300x225 - Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Illegal Fees added on to the Advertised Price

Many dealers in Maryland, and other states, often add illegal fees on top of the advertised price of a vehicle.

These fees are usually just excuses to to charge more, and do not reflect any actual value that was provided to the customer.

Common bogus dealer fees are:

  • Reconditioning
  • Certification
  • Inspection
  • PDI – “Pre-Delivery Inspection

Very often, nothing was actually done to the vehicle in connection with these fees, which can give rise to a fraud allegation.

If you have been charged any of these fees, you have legal rights and may be able to recover both the fee amount, interest paid on the fee, and have attorney’s fees covered.

Expensive Inflated and Worthless Aftermarket Products 300x225 - Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Expensive, Inflated and Worthless Aftermarket Products

In Maryland, many dealers love to sell aftermarket products at huge markups.  These extra products are often wildly overpriced and sometimes worthless.

Examples of common overpriced aftermarket products include:

  • vehicle service contracts
  • lost key replacement
  • dent and ding protection
  • environment interior cleaners
  • overpriced GAP
  • LoJack
  • Kahu GPS
  • Sanitizing “treatments.”
  • Clear-coating or other “treatments” that are never actually applied.

Similar to bogus fees, these “aftermarket products” are a profit center for dealers.  The markups are often 100%, or even more.

For example, some “sanitizing treatments” cost $20, consist of a spray applied from a spray bottle into the interior of the car before delivery, and are inflated to $1,000 or more.  This is not a fee, it is a fraud.

Whitney, LLP has handled multiple cases involving consumers being charged for bogus aftermarkets products.

Price Increases Above the Advertised Price

In Maryland, based on hundreds of cases Whitney, LLP has handled, it is rare that dealers honor the advertised price. Instead, salesmen and finance managers often make excuses to add thousands of dollars onto advertised prices.  Common excuses for price increases above the advertised price in various bogus fees, as discussed above, and excuses such as “market adjustment”, “supply and demand”, and other nonsense terms.

If a dealer refused to honor the advertised price, you have legal rights and can fight back.

Secret Dealer Interest Rate Markup 300x225 - Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Dealers do not disclose secret interest rate increases. Their profit directly hurts the consumer and forces a higher car payment.

Secret Dealer Interest Rate Markup

Many customers have no idea that lenders offer a lower “buy rate” rate to dealers, who then increase the rate offered to customers, and the dealer and lender then split the profit.

The “buy rate” is the interest rate that the lender conveys to the dealer.  Dealers often increase that rate by 2%, and split the profit with the lender.

The difference between the “buy rate” and the rate the customer is charged is often called “dealer reserve”,  “markup”, or “holding points.”

Customers are often lied to, and told that the inflated rate is the best that the lender could do.

Instead, the extra 2% interest rate is not an interest charge. it is a disguised finance charge that Whitney, LLP believes is illegal in Maryland.

It is also Whitney, LLP’s position that failing to disclose to a consumer that a lower interest rate is available, and failing to disclose that the dealer and lender are splitting profits from the increased rate, which is effectively a charge for financing the vehicle, is a deceptive practice. This article discusses this practice of interest rate markups. You may need a lawyer for problems with car dealer to help with dishonest interest rate increases.

Discriminatory and Racist Dealer Pricing Behavior 300x225 - Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Dealers often prey on minority customers to make huge profits.

Racial Dealer Discrimination on Fees and Interest

Finance managers who sell aftermarket products and increase interest rates often have total discretion in doing so.

How much they can charge each customer, and which customer to charge the most to, is usually based on what they think they can get away with.

Minority customers are often charged higher rates for both aftermarket products and interest rates.

If you suspect you were charged more because of the color of your skin or nationality, you have legal rights and can fight back.  Whitney, LLP can help.

daniel whitney jr daniel whitney sr 300x240 - Passport Auto Pays $3.3 Million In Fee and Pricing Allegations

Daniel Whitney, Jr. and Daniel Whitney, Sr. of Whitney, LLP

Lawyer for Illegal Dealer Fees and Dealer Discrimination – Whitney, LLP

Whitney, LLP has experience recovering compensation against dishonest car dealers in Maryland.

Whether you suspect you were charged more due to racial dealer discrimination or taken advantage otherwise, call us.

We offer Free Contract Reviews. 

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

Read More

Dealer Kept the Down Payment, $66,000 Penalty

A dealer kept the down payment after a sale fell through despite having no legal basis to do so.  Our customer purchased a vehicle from a Maryland dealer.  After he took delivery, but before he had made his first payment, he realized that the vehicle had severe problems and could not drive without shaking at highway speeds.  He called the finance company, who told him to call the dealer.  The dealer said they had bought the loan back, but the finance company told him that was not true.

With the first payment being due in a few days, our client did not know what to do.  He did not want to make the payment for the damaged vehicle, and he also did not want to get a repossession on his credit.  He testified that the dealer called him multiple times and threatened him with repossession.   He then returned the vehicle to the dealer.

auto fraud 2 300x169 - Dealer Kept the Down Payment, $66,000 Penalty

The Dealer Kept the Down Payment After Vehicle Returned

After returning the vehicle,  the dealer refused to return his $5,500 down payment.  They dealer kept the down payment based on a document that said the deposit was non-refundable, and also because they had a sign on the wall that listed various fees they could charge if a deal was cancelled.  However, neither of those basis for keeping the down payment was legal. In fact, both were illegal.

After the dealer kept the down payment, our client hired Whitney, LLP’s dealer fraud attorneys.  We filed suit, and the dealer refused to return the downpayment.  So, we pursued the case, and had a hearing.  The result was that a judgment was entered against the dealer for over $66,000, including $30,000 in attorney’s fees.

The actual arbitration order in the case, issued by the judge, with minor edits, is pasted below.

Arbitration Order from the Case

Arbitration Order issued in Re: PLAINTIFF v DEALER, Charles County, Maryland, Arbitration

The parties, hereinafter “Plaintiff and “Dealer” have a dispute arising out of the purchase of a 2013 Ford Explorer, and the parties elected to have it resolved by arbitration in their written Agreement of November 23, 2020, having further agreed in writing to have the matter resolved before me by way of an Arbitration conducted in lieu of any AAA Arbitration contemplated by the parties’ 2020 agreement. This case came before me for arbitration February 4, 2022. The case was well presented by counsel for both sides. Testimony was taken and exhibits were received.

In November of 2020, Plaintiff found a 2013 Ford Explorer advertised for $13,999 on Facebook Marketplace by Dealer and communicated with Dealer’s representative, OWNER, and went to see the vehicle on the evening of November 20, 2020.

Deposit Claimed to be Nonrefundable

Though the price increased to $15,500 (Plaintiff says he was told that the increase was due to “bank” fee due to his bad credit, and Dealer says the increase was due to money it had to spend to get the vehicle through the Maryland inspection), he agreed to purchase the vehicle and made a down payment of $1,000. Plaintiff returned on November 23, with the rest of the $5,500 down payment and was provided with a receipt for the full down payment, similar to one provided for the initial $1,000 down payment, signed or initialed by both parties and indicating that “ALL DEPOSITS ARE NON-REFUNDABLE!” Plaintiff says he noticed accident damage and confronted Dealer’s agent, who denied it and threatened to keep the vehicle and the down payment. Plaintiff says he felt like he had no choice and went forward with the purchase. Dealer arranged financing and the parties executed a “Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement”, which contained an integration clause:

Entire Agreement. Your and our entire agreement is contained in the Contract. Any change to this Contract must be in writing and signed by you and us.”

Within the first few days, Plaintiff noticed a shaking and difficulty controlling the vehicle at speeds over 55 mph and complained to Dealer, asking if he could return the vehicle.

Threats of Repossession

Dealer declined the proffered return, but instead offered to fix it. Dealer arranged to have one tire replaced with a used tire and had the front wheels aligned, however the problems were not corrected. As the first payment due date was approaching on December 23rd, Plaintiff contacted the finance company to explain why he wanted to return the vehicle and the finance company said they would reach out to the dealership. On the following Saturday, December 26, 2020, Plaintiff got a call from the Dealer dealership wherein he says that they told him that they had bought the financing contract back and that Plaintiff would have to return the vehicle to them by the end of the day or they would repossess it. Plaintiff contacted the finance company again and was told that the dealer had not bought the contract back. Plaintiff estimates that he received 10 calls from Dealer on that day to the safe effect, and that he returned the vehicle to the dealer on the following Monday, which was the date that United Auto Credit did actually notify the Dealer dealer that it must repurchase the finance contract on the subject vehicle. He had two repossessions in the past and wanted to avoid further credit damage. Dealer told Plaintiff that no down payment would be refunded because he had defaulted by not making the first payment.

Sign on the Wall Lists Illegal Fees

Dealer asserts that it is entitled to forfeit the deposit because its receipt says that it was non-refundable and because it called Plaintiff’s attention to a sign on the wall of their business saying that various fees would apply in the event of a return, such as a daily fee of

$39, a fee of 49 cents per mile, a restocking fee of $00 and a $500 Maryland Dealer processing fee. No signed document supports such fees and Dealer acknowledges it has never asserted or collected them before. Plaintiff asserts various claims under the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (“CLEC”), Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“CDCA”), and claims for breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment.

Legal Analysis

  1. The parties and this transaction fall within the ambit of the CLEC, the CPA and the
  2. The agreement of the parties is contained in the Retail Installment and Security Agreement. It contains an integration clause which supersedes any claim based on language in previous down payment receipts purporting to make the down payment non-refundable. It also trumps any claim for miscellaneous fees posted on the wall of the dealership. Dealer’s exclusive remedies for breach are set forth on page 3 of the Agreement and do not include any of those claimed as set forth above.
  3. Under the CLEC, Dealer’s repeated calls to Plaintiff requests for him to bring the vehicle back and threats to repossess, followed by the Plaintiff’s coerced returning of the vehicle to Dealer amount to a repossession of the vehicle. The repossession was not preceded by the requisite 10-day notice and was not followed up with the requisite notice of right to redeem and notice of rights and accounting upon resale. Dealer resold the vehicle for more than was owed by Plaintiff under the contract and did not provide Plaintiff with the requisite post-sale notices of refunds and upon notification of violation did not cure within 10 days, thus entitling Plaintiff to treble the number of actual damages of $16,500 and reasonable attorney’s fees.
  4. Increasing the price from the advertised price is a misrepresentation of a material fact and an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of the CPA.
  5. Forfeiture of Plaintiff’s deposit (upon his return of the vehicle per Dealer’s request) without contractual or legal basis is a misrepresentation of a material fact and an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of the CPA.
  6. Each of the failures previously set forth in paragraph number 3, above, also constitutes a violation of the CPA.
  7. The Plaintiff suffered actual damages of $5,500 and also emotional distress as he had no money to put down on another vehicle until June of 2021 and had to juggle one vehicle with his wife and children, change jobs to eliminate a long commute without the vehicle, resulting in domestic discord, tension and upset. Emotional distress is assessed at $20,000. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under the CPA.
  8. The actions of Dealer as set forth in the above paragraphs also constitute violations of the CDCA for which Plaintiff is also entitled to damages for emotional distress and mental anguish as set forth above.
  9. The failure of Dealer to abide by the terms of the Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement by insisting on rights and payments to which it was not entitled constitutes a Breach of Contract.
  10. The retention of monies not due to it specifically by forfeiture of down payment and retention of excess proceeds of sale constitutes unjust enrichment.

ORDER

While Plaintiff has prevailed under various causes of action, the recoveries under each count may not be duplicative. Therefore, an award is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Dealer for triple actual damages of $16,500, for emotional and mental distress of $20,000, totaling $36,500 plus reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined. Plaintiff is to submit its accounting for attorneys’ fees within 10 days. Dealer shall then have 10 days to respond. The Arbitrator will then assess the amount of reasonable attorney’s. fees.

Whitney, LLP’s YouTube Video on this Case:

 

Dealer Fraud Attorneys in Maryland

Whitney, LLP represents consumers across Maryland in cases against car dealers.  Consumers who are treated unfairly with deceptive practices have many legal rights and can fight back.  The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed additional regulations against dishonest car dealer – read more here.

 Click Here to Read about our Top 10 Most Common Types of Cases against Car Dealers.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.  Prior results are not a guarantee of future results, and all cases are different.

Read More

Koons Kia Settles False Advertising Claims with AG

The Maryland Attorney General reached an agreement with Koons Kia in Owings Mills, MD that requires Koons Kia to refund an estimated $1,000,000 to its customers who were allegedly charged hidden fees through false advertising.  Koons Kia disputes the allegations.

The law firm of Whitney, LLP represents consumers in cases against car dealerships in Maryland.  Many Maryland dealers charge illegal price increases and illegal fees to customers, and often get away with it.  However, Maryland law is clear as to what price and fees a dealer may charge.

If a dealer charges more than the advertised price, or charges illegal fees, consumers can bring claims for violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act.

Whitney, LLP has experience suing car dealers for dishonest practices, including false advertising, illegal fees and charges, illegal finance charges, interest rates that are too high, and other scams and schemes.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

Maryland Car Dealer Advertising and Pricing Law

Pasted below are the two sections of the Maryland Transportation code that govern car dealer advertising and fees.

Essentially, dealers must honor the advertise price, and can only add taxes and title fees.  For new cars, the advertised price includes dealer processing fees and freight charges, unless those amounts are properly disclosed per legal disclosure requirements.

What these laws mean is that dealers that try to trick customers into paying more than the advertised price for “Maryland Inspection Fees”, “Reconditioning Fees”, “Inspection Charges”, “Pre-installed GPS” and other fake charges are behaving illegally. 

§ 15-313. Prohibited acts — Advertising practices.

(a) A dealer or an agent or employee of a dealer may not use any advertisement that is in any way false, deceptive, or misleading.
(b) A dealer or an agent or employee of a dealer may not by any means advertise or offer to the public any vehicle without intent to sell it as advertised or offered.

(c)

(1)A dealer or an agent or employee of a dealer:

(i)May not state the purchase price of a vehicle in an advertisement unless the price is the full delivered purchase price of the vehicle, excluding only taxes, title fees, and any freight or dealer processing charge disclosed in accordance with § 15-311.1 of this subtitle; and
(ii)Shall print the full delivered purchase price in a vehicle advertisement in the largest font used in the advertisement to provide any information related to the price of the vehicle.

§ 15-311.1. Dealer processing charge.

(a)

(1) In this section, “dealer processing charge” includes an amount charged by a dealer for:

(i) The preparation of written documentation of the transaction;
(ii) Obtaining the title and license plates for the vehicle;
(iii) Obtaining a release of lien;
(iv) Filing title documents with the Administration;
(v) Retaining documentation and records of the transaction;
(vi) Complying with federal or State privacy laws; or
(vii) Other administrative services concerning the sale of the vehicle.
(2) “Dealer processing charge” does not include a charge to purchase or install tangible personal property on or in the vehicle, or to perform mechanical service on the vehicle.

(b)

(1) If a dealer charges a dealer processing charge, the charge:

(i) Shall be reasonable;

(ii) May not exceed:

1. $200 for the period from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014;
2. $300 for the period from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2020; and
3. $500 on and after July 1, 2020; and
(iii) Shall reflect dealer expenses generally incurred for the services identified in subsection (a)(1) of this section.
(2) A dealer shall provide a written disclosure of the services included in the dealer processing charge on request by the purchaser.
(c) Any dealer processing charge or freight charge shall be disclosed to a purchaser as provided in this section.

(d) A contract for the sale of a vehicle shall contain a statement, in 12 point type or larger, on the contract form as follows:

“Dealer processing charge (not required by law): $ ”.

“Freight charge: $ ”.

(e) If a dealer advertises the price of a vehicle, the amount of any dealer processing charge and freight charge shall be included in the advertised price unless the dealer clearly and conspicuously discloses the amount of the dealer processing charge and freight charge in at least 10 point and bold font within reasonable proximity to the advertised price.

(f) The dealer shall attach its price statement to a window of the vehicle, next to any other price disclosure required by law. The dealer’s price statement shall state the total price for which the dealer is offering to sell the vehicle. The total price stated shall include any dealer processing charge, which shall be disclosed above the total price in at least 10 point type as “dealer processing charge (not required by law): $ ”. The total price may exclude only the taxes and title fees payable to the State.

Press Release for AG’s Settlement with Koons Kia

The majority of the Press Release is pasted below.

Attorney General Frosh Announces Settlement with Koons Kia Dealer Will Return Fees Not Included in Advertised Price and Improper Freight Charges to Consumers BALTIMORE, MD (April 19, 2022).  Also, click AG Press Release to read the original press release.

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh announced today that his Consumer Protection Division has entered into a settlement with Koons of Reisterstown Road, Inc., the owner of the Koons Kia dealership located in Owings Mills, Maryland.

The settlement addresses allegations that Koons Kia charged consumers hidden fees not included in its advertised prices, and it collected fees for shipping their vehicles (known as “freight charges”) from consumers, although the shipping cost was already included in the advertised price of the vehicle.

The settlement requires Koons Kia to stop charging car purchasers fees, other than taxes or title fees, if the fees were not included in the advertised price for a vehicle. The dealership also agreed not to charge consumers for shipping if such freight charges were already included in any advertised price for the vehicle.

The company also agreed to return all fees it collected from consumers other than taxes and title fees that were not included in the advertised price of the vehicle, as well as all amounts it collected for freight charges that were already included in the advertised price of the vehicle.

The Attorney General estimates that, as a result of the settlement, more than $1 million will be returned to consumers. Koons Kia also agreed to pay the Division $100,000 for its costs incurred in investigating the matter. “

Car dealers must honor the price they advertise for their vehicles,” said Attorney General Frosh. “I am glad that Maryland consumers will receive refunds for the fees that they paid above the advertised price.” Consumers who are owed refunds under the settlement do not need to do anything; they will be contacted directly by the Consumer Protection Division.

Settlement Agreement “Assurance of Discontinuance” with Koons Kia

Pasted below is the majority of the actual agreement reached between the Attorney General’s Office and Koons Kia.  Click Koons Kia Agreement to read the actual agreement.

ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE

This Assurance of Discontinuance (“Assurance”) is made and entered into by the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division (the “Division”) and Koons ofReisterstown Road, Inc., trading as Koons Kia (“Koons Kia”). The Division and Koons Kia agree as follows:

  1. The Division is responsible for enforcement of Maryland consumer protection laws, including the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), Md. Code , Com. Law§§ 13-101 through 13-501.
  2. Koons of Reisterstown Road, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that operates an automobile dealership under the name of Koons Kia offering and selling Kia vehicles to

THE DIVISION’S ALLEGATIONS

  1. Maryland law requires automobile dealerships that advertise vehicles for sale to include in the advertised price the full delivered cash price that a customer must pay, except for taxes and title Further, for new vehicles, that advertised price must also include any dealer processing charge and freight charge, unless the dealership clearly and conspicuously discloses the amount of these charges in the advertisement.
  2. The Consumer Protection Act makes it an unfair, deceptive or abusive trade practice to make statements that are capable of misleading consumers or to fail to disclose material facts, the omission of which deceives or tends to deceive consumers.
  3. The Division Alleges that Koons Kia charged consumers a purchase price over the advertised price.
  4. The Division further alleges that Koons Kia collected additional charges for freight even though the charges were already included in its advertised price.
  5. The Division further alleges that Koon’s Kia’s practice of charging more than the advertised price is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that is prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act.
  6. The Division finally alleges that Koon’s Kia’s practice of charging consumers an additional fee for freight when those charges were already included in the advertised price of the vehicle is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that is prohibited by the Consumer Protection

KOON’S KIA’S DENIALS

  1. Koons Kia asserts that, at all times relevant to the Division’s inquiry, Koon’s Kia’s advertising practices complied with all applicable laws in Maryland. Koons Kia denies that the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”) was its advertised price and that it violated any provision of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. Koons Kia agrees to the terms of this Assurance, without trial of any issue of fact or law, for the purpose of resolving its dispute with the Division regarding the above Nothing in this Assurance shall constitute an admission of liability.

DEFINITION

  1. “Advertise,” “advertised,” and “advertisement” as used in this Assurance shall include any graphic, electronic, written, recorded, oral or other type of promotion or offer of a vehicle for sale.
  2. The “advertised price” as used in this Assurance is the price a vehicle is advertised for sale. The advertised price will be the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”) if the MSRP is displayed as the advertised price absent a different dealer selling Advertised price includes any vehicle price provided in any advertisement, web site, or vehicle window sticker.

CEASE AND DESIST PROVISIONS

  1. The provisio/;p0ol.ns of this Assurance shall apply to Koons Kia and its officers, employees, and agents.
  2. The provisions of this Assurance shall apply to Koons Kia’s advertisement of vehicles to consumers residing in Maryland or to consumers from its dealership located in
  3. Koons Kia shall not make a representation to consumers that has the capacity, tendency or effect of misleading consumers.
  4. Koons Kia shall not fail to state a material fact, the omission of which deceives or tends to deceive consumers.
  5. Koons Kia shall not advertise the price of a vehicle for sale unless that advertised price is the full delivered cash price, which the customer shall pay, except for taxes and title
  6. Koons Kia shall not charge consumers any dealer processing charge or freight charge in addition to the advertised price unless the charge is disclosed in accordance with Maryland law in the advertisement.
  7. Koons Kia shall not charge consumers any freight charge that is already included in the advertised price of a vehicle for sale.

RESTITUTION

  1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Assurance Koons Kia shall pay the Division restitution equal to the amount consumers paid it in connection with their purchase of vehicles of: (1) all fees and other amounts charged-other than for taxes and title fees, and any dealer processing fee-that were not included in the advertised price of the vehicle; and (2) fees for freight when such fees were already included in the advertised price of the vehicle (hereinafter the “Restitution Amount”).
  2. The Division shall distribute the Restitution Amount to consumers included on the list provided by Koons Kia who were impacted by Koons Kia’s practices alleged herein.
  3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Assurance, Koons Kia shall provide the Division with a list of Maryland consumers who paid the fees and other amounts that comprise the Restitution Amount and who are entitled to receive a restitution payment under the terms of this Assurance (the “Consumer List”). For each consumer whose name is contained in the Consumer List, Koons Kia shall provide the following information in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, with each item below contained in a separate field:
  • the consumer’s name
  • the consumer’s last known street address;
  • the consumer’s last known city, state and zip code;
  • the consumer’s phone number(s);
  • the consumer’s email address(es);
  • the consumer’s Social Security number;
  • the advertised price of the vehicle, including any manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) if there was not a different dealer sale price advertised;
  • the amount of all fees and other amounts, other than taxes, title fees, and dealer processing charges, that the consumer paid that were not included in an advertised price of the vehicle; and
  • the amount of freight fees that the consumer paid if such fees were already included in the advertised price.
  1. The Division shall perform a claims process that will be conducted by a person or persons (hereinafter the “Claims Administrator”) to identify and pay restitution to eligible
  2. The Claims Administrator may be an employee of the Division or an independent claims processor.
  3. The claims process shall consist of identifying and locating each consumer who is eligible to receive restitution pursuant to this Assurance, gathering all information necessary to determine the amounts of restitution due to each consumer eligible to receive restitution, and the mailing of restitution payments to all such consumers and any other mailings that assist the claims
  4. If it is possible to determine a consumer’s entitlement to relief from sources other than the consumer, that relief shall be provided to the consumer without the necessity of the consumer submitting information in the claims process.
  5. The Claims Administrator shall perform the above duties under the supervision and control of the Division.
  6. Koons Kia shall give the Claims Administrator complete access to all records, data, and personnel necessary for the Claims Administrator to complete his or her duties.
  7. If, at any stage of the claims process, it is determined that the Division will require additional payments from Koons Kia to satisfy all consumer restitution due under this Assurance, Koons Kia shall pay the Division additional restitution in the amount specified by the Division within thirty (30) days of being notified by the Division of the additional amount.
  8. If there are insufficient funds collected to provide full restitution to each eligible consumer, restitution shall be distributed to consumers on a pro rata basis.
  9. At the conclusion of any claims process conducted by the Division, any part of the Restitution Amount paid by Koons Kia under this Assurance that has not been distributed to consumers may, at the discretion of the Attorney General, may be (a) held in trust for consumers by the State or (b) used in accordance with State law, for consumer education or other purposes permitted by State law.

COSTS

  1. Koons Kia shall pay the Division Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), which the Division shall use to pay for the costs of the claims procedure provided under this Assurance. Koons Kia shall make the payment required under this paragraph as follows: Thirty(30) days from the date of this Assurance, Koons Kia shall pay the Division One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). If Koons Kia has fully complied with all provisions of the Assurance, including making timely payments pursuant to its payment terms, and remains in compliance for a period of one year, the Division shall waive the remaining One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) of the payment that Koons Kia is required to pay pursuant to this paragraph. If, at any time prior to the one year anniversary of this Assurance, Koons Kia breaches any of the terms of this Assurance, the remaining balance of the amount due hereunder shall become due and owing.

RELEASE

  1. In consideration for Koons Kia’s commitments as set forth in this Assurance, the Division releases and discharges Koons Kia, and its officers, employees, and agents, from all civil claims that the Division could have brought under the Consumer Protection Act, relating to the conduct alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 that occurred prior to Koon’s Kia’s signing this

DISPUTES

  1. The Chief of the Division, or his designee, shall resolve any disputes concerning this Assurance and enter any supplemental orders needed to effectuate its purpose.

ENFORCEMENT

  1. Koons Kia understands that this Assurance is enforceable by the Consumer Protection Division pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act and that any violation of this Assurance is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. Koons Kia agrees that any future violations of this Assurance, or the Consumer Protection Act, shall constitute a second violation of the Consumer Protection Act for purposes of 13-410 of the Act.

whitney 1 300x178 - Koons Kia Settles False Advertising Claims with AG

Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP

Lawyers for Help With Car Dealer Problems

If you have been cheated by a car dealer’s false advertising or charged illegal fees, call Whitney, LLP for your Legal Consultation.

We have helped hundreds of consumers recover money from Maryland dealers.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

 

Read More

What Dealer Reserve Interest Is and Why It is a Scam

Dealer Reserve in the car dealer industry refers to the difference between the lowest interest rate a lender approves a car loan for, and the highest interest rate that the car dealer can trick a customer into paying.  Essentially all car dealer in Maryland charge higher interest rates than the customer qualifies for, and do this is as a standard business practice.

This practice of car dealers secretly holding interest points and misrepresenting to customers the interest rate they qualify is an open, dirty secret of the car business.

The “Buy Rate” is the lowest rate a lender will authorize to make a loan, and the higher rate is the dealer’s “Participation Rate.” When a finance manager is able to trick a customer into paying a higher interest rate, the dealer makes an additional profit, and a portion of that extra interest charge is often kicked back to the lender.

Dealers never disclose to a customer that they are secretly charging higher rates than the customer was approved for.

Customers who are cheated into paying a higher interest rate than they qualify for, and who do not have the lowest interest rate disclosed to them, have legal rights and can fight back.

Whitney’s LLP’s attorneys for car dealer problems have experience representing car buyers. Consumers have more legal rights than they realize, and we help buyers fight back against dishonest dealers.  We represent clients across Maryland.

 Click Here to Read about our Top 10 Most Common Types of Cases against Car Dealers.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

Whitney, LLP’s Video on Explaining Dealer Reserve:

Lawsuit Filed Over Dealer Reserve Inflated Interest Rate

Whitney, LLP recently filed a lawsuit against a Maryland car dealer for not disclosing that the customer was approved by the lender at a lower interest rate.  In this case, our client had hired us after being sold a car that was advertised as “new” but had sustained significant damage that was not disclosed to him.

While reviewing the documents produced in the case, we discovered that the lender had approved him at a rate of 16%, but had charged him 18%.  Of course, like most consumers, if he had been informed that the lender approved him to pay 16%, he would not have agreed to pay 18%.  Instead, the finance manager had deceived him, and simply told him that 18% was the rate he was approved at.  Of course, this was not true.

However, the dealer failed to disclose this information, which is a violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, which prevents unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Car Dealer Lied About Best Interest Rate

Car dealers and finance managers are not allowed to lie to customers to get them to pay a higher interest rate.  This does not stop them from engaging in the illegal practice of telling customers false information and lying to the customer’s face when they say that the best interest rate available is higher than what it really is.

Customers who are tricked into paying high interest rates have many legal rights.  The lawyers at Whitney, LLP have experience helping consumers with car dealer interest rate problems.

whitney 1 300x178 - What Dealer Reserve Interest Is and Why It is a Scam

Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP

Lawyer for Help With Car Dealer Interest Rates

If you have questions about the interest rate you were charged, or had other interest rate problems with a car dealer, lender of auto finance company, call the consumer lawyers at Whitney, LLP.  We offer Legal Consultations, and have helped many consumers and car buyers fight back against dishonest dealers.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

Read More

True Story – Dealer Did Not Provide Title for 2+ Years

Watch the Video Below: When dealers sell a car and do not have the title, buyers can have serious problems with car dealerships that can lead to legal, financial and emotional consequences. Without a clear title, Maryland buyers cannot register their new car, leading to expired temporary tags, being unable to lawfully drive the car, and other problems caused by the dishonest dealer.

Whitney, LLP attorneys help buyers with car dealer problems sue dealers, including for not having the title and when dealers will not register a new vehicle.

This video blog discusses a recent case involving a dealership that did not provide the title to a family for over 2.5 years.  This is a story of a car dealership that stopped taking any action, and tried to ignore their customer’s complaints.  This nightmare scenario is a good example of what happens when the greed of a car dealership takes over and how it can hurt consumers.

Whitney’s LLP’s attorneys for car dealer problems have experience representing car buyer. Consumers have more legal rights than they realize, and we help buyers fight back against dishonest dealers.

 Click Here to Read about our Top 10 Most Common Types of Cases against Car Dealers.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

Dealer Sold the Car Without the Title – 2 Years Later

Edited Transcript Below:

This is Dan Whitney with the Whitney Law Firm in Towson, Maryland. Today, we’re going to talk about the issue of car dealers selling a car and not providing the title. So I’ve represented many consumers in Maryland who have purchased a car and the dealer either does not provide the title or it takes months and months to provide the title in violation of Maryland rules and administrative regulations.

So what often happens is a car dealership will sell a car, but they don’t have the title. Perhaps the lien has not been paid off from when they bought it at auction or when it was traded in, or some other issue. Now, a specific case that I want to talk about today is a recent one, and this involves a husband and wife who came to Maryland from out of state and they bought a car, and fast forward two and a half years, the dealership never provided the title.

car dealership lot 300x225 - True Story - Dealer Did Not Provide Title for 2+ Years

Dealer Did Not Register the Vehicle

And this is a large dealership with approximately 20 different stores who certainly should know better and certainly has the capability of fixing a problem like this, which begs the question, why did they not fix it? So what happens is this, this family comes up from out of state, they buy a car, it’s a used vehicle. They’re given a 60 day temp tag.

The temp tag expires, so they call the dealership, the dealer issues a 30 day tag. The 30 day tag expires. So the husband starts to call the dealership, and over two and a half years, he calls dozens of times. And towards the beginning of this problem, he calls and he says, “Listen, I haven’t gotten my registration yet. I can’t legally drive this vehicle. Can you please fix the problem?”

And they say, “We haven’t sent you the title and registered the vehicle yet in your state because you owe us $3,000. We gave you too much of a credit due to your military service, but we actually shouldn’t have given it to you. And bottom line, you got to pay $3000 more.”

Refusing to Help With Title or Registration Problems After the Sale

And he says, “You know what? I don’t think that’s fair, but I need this car registered. My family uses it. Fine.” Cuts a check, sends it to the dealership. They never cash the check. So he calls and he says, “Listen, I sent you a check for $3,000. It was never cashed. What’s going on? My car needs to be registered.”

And they say, “Actually, we have no record of your deal in our records.” And he says, “Well, that’s crazy because I owe the bank money every month now, about $500 a month, and you guys got paid on this. The bank has told me that. So I know you have a copy in my file.” “We don’t have a copy.”

car title maryland 300x229 - True Story - Dealer Did Not Provide Title for 2+ Years

Dealers in Maryland are required to have the title in their possession at the dealership and provide it within 30 days after the sale. Many do not.

Ticked for Driving Without Registration

So he keeps calling and calling and different managers tell him that he’ll look into this until finally in December of 2020 he calls and he speaks with somebody. He says, “Look, it’s been about two years now. I don’t have my title. My wife actually was driving the vehicle on the expired temp tags and she got pulled over and she got a ticket. So this is a huge problem now. Please help.”

And they actually tell him, “We are not going to do anything else involving your vehicle.” They simply wash their hands of it as if that’s something they’re legally allowed to do. But keep in mind dealerships are very often unlawful places and they do whatever they think they can do that they can get away with it. That’s largely how they operate, especially here in Maryland. So what happens next? Well, after she got pulled over in the vehicle, they actually had to buy another vehicle.

So now they’ve got two car payments and two insurance payments because they needed to be able to transport their family without fear of being pulled over, ticketed, and or arrested for driving an unregistered vehicle. So after they’re told by the dealership, “Look, we’re just not going to do anything else,” they ended up calling my office.

lawsuit filed 300x185 - True Story - Dealer Did Not Provide Title for 2+ Years

Dealer Sued for Not Providing Title

I take their case, file a lawsuit, and, of course, within about two weeks, the lawyer for the dealer reaches out and says, “Hey, we have the title. This was a mistake. Can’t we just get this settled?” And, of course, I say, “Well, if you have the title now, why didn’t you have it when they called dozens of times? None of this sounds right. Why did your client just bury his head in the sand and not do anything right and not help these people?”

And, of course, as the case goes on, we will get those answers. My guess is that it’s because the dealer would rather spend its time signing up new customers as opposed to dealing with the problem on which they’re not going to make any money, because, of course, money is what makes a dealership tick. So in this case, we have filed a lawsuit against the dealership for not providing the title.

The causes of action include the Consumer Protection Act, negligence, fraud, and unjust enrichment, because, of course, the client is paying for something that dealership has received money for a product which it never should have sold.

whitney 1 300x178 - True Story - Dealer Did Not Provide Title for 2+ Years

Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP

Whitney, LLP’s Lawyers for When the Dealer Does Not Provide the Title

If you have found yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of buying a car and the dealer has either never provided the title or provided it months late, you have legal rights and can fight back.

You may be entitled to compensation, including:

  • your actual damages, meaning money you’ve paid to the bank and for insurance while you can’t use the car, and
  • damages for your emotional distress, which includes the stress and anxiety of the situation.

Our lawyers sue car dealerships across Maryland, including Baltimore, Pasadena, Cockeysville, Owings Mills, Temple Hills, Marlow Heights, Middle River, Germantown, Silver Spring, Frederick, Waldorf, Laurel, Glen Burnie, Gaithersburg, Rockville, Ellicott City and Salisbury.

We experience helping car buyers fight back against dishonest dealers in a variety of scams of schemes.

We offer Legal Consultations to car buyers.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

Read More

When a New Car Has Damage or Was Sold Before – Legal Rights

Watch the Video Below: Maryland law protects consumers who buy new cars and find that their new car was not actually new.  Customers buy new cars to avoid problems that arise in used cars.  Buyers of new cars also want to avoid problems from damage and bad repairs.  Whitney, LLP’s lawyers help buyers who find that their new car has hidden damage, or that their new car was actually sold to someone else first. Car buyers have many legal rights and can sue dishonest and fraudulent dealers.

Whitney’s LLP’s attorneys for car dealer problems have experience representing car buyers who were tricked into paying for car advertised as new, when the car was actually not new. Consumers have more legal rights than they realize, and we help buyers fight back against dishonest dealers.

 Click Here to Read about our Top 10 Most Common Types of Cases against Car Dealers.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

When a New Car Has Damage or Was Sold Before

Edited Transcript is below:

Hi, this is Dan Whitney with the Whitney Law Firm in Towson, Maryland. Today we’re going to talk about the interesting topic of when a new car is not really a new car. So, I’ve been a lawyer for about 10 years. I’ve handled many car dealership cases, many problems involving car dealerships across Maryland. And some of these arise out of the issue of somebody buys a car that is advertised as new and somehow they find out that it’s actually not a new car. So how does this happen?

car dealer did not pay off my trade in 300x200 - When a New Car Has Damage or Was Sold Before - Legal Rights

When a New Car Was Sold to Someone Else First

What happens is usually it’s one of the two things. One, a vehicle will get delivered, meaning another consumer takes possession of it, drives it off the lot as if it was their own. The vehicle gets delivered to somebody else, that person uses the car for an extended period of time. And then usually, something happens like financing is not approved, they have to bring that car back.

Now, in Maryland, there are disclosure requirements where if a car is delivered to somebody else and there’s some other factors, but generally speaking, that must be disclosed to a new buyer because of course that buyer is going to want to know. They’re going to find it important to know before they buy a car, “Has this been delivered to somebody else? Has somebody else used this like it’s their own car? Because if so, I may not want that. I may want a real new car that’s actually new in every sense of the word. And I just don’t want anybody else to have possessed it and used it how they may have used it. I want a new car.”

The Maryland Administrative Regulation, COMAR 11.12.01.14(K) addressing prior delivery of a new car can be viewed in full here, and is also below:

K. A vehicle which has never been titled, but which has been previously delivered to a customer, may be subsequently sold as a new vehicle if the:

(1) Vehicle has not been used in a manner so as to destroy its newness; and

(2) Buyer is advised, in writing, of:

(a) The number of persons to whom the vehicle was previously delivered;

(b) The mileage accumulated on the vehicle while it was in the possession of each prior customer;

(c) The reason the prior customers returned the vehicle to the dealer;

(d) Any other information required by this regulation or any other State or federal law; and

(e) A written disclosure in 10-point type and separate from the purchase contract document which states: “PART OR ALL OF THE MILEAGE ON THE ODOMETER OF THIS VEHICLE RESULTED FROM PREVIOUS DELIVERY TO A RETAIL PURCHASER WHO NEVER TOOK TITLE TO THE VEHICLE. FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES A BUYER’S GUIDE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE SIDE WINDOW OF THIS VEHICLE. YOU ARE WELCOME TO INQUIRE AS TO THE SPECIFIC USAGE OF THE VEHICLE FROM THE DATE OF ITS DELIVERY TO THE DEALER. YOU ARE ALSO WELCOME TO CONDUCT WHATEVER INSPECTION YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE VEHICLE.”

Lawsuit Filed When New Car Was Sold Previously

We had a case where that scenario came to light after our client bought a car that had about 600 miles on it. She went to activate the Sirius radio. And when she got home and she tried to activate it, she was told, “This has already been activated.” She said, “Well, that doesn’t make any sense. This is a new car. It has 600 miles. I was told that the manager’s wife drove it. Why would somebody activate the Sirius radio?” And she had the foresight to say, “Well, what was the person’s name who activated the subscription?”

Fortunately, it was a pretty unique name. And she contacted our office, provided the name of that person. I reached out to that person and I said, “Hey, I’m Dan Whitney. I represent Ms. So-and-so in connection with this car. Here’s what happened. Can you tell me why did you activate the Sirius radio?” And he said, “Oh, I took delivery of the car. It was mine. I bought it. And then I got a call from the dealership about a week later saying, ‘If you want to keep it, you have to put down more money’.” And the gentleman said, “I didn’t want to do that so I just took the car back to the dealership and gave it back to them and said, ‘You keep it’.”

So that’s a perfect example of when a dealer should have disclosed, “This has been delivered to somebody else.” But of course they didn’t because they wanted to make more money and their fear was, “If we tell somebody this, they’re going to say, ‘I want a thousand or two off the sticker price because now it’s a used car’.” So of course they just stayed quiet, let their greed control them and decided to try and cheat somebody. And in that case, it didn’t work out for them.

Frustrated consumer car sales 300x188 - When a New Car Has Damage or Was Sold Before - Legal Rights

When a New Car is Damaged, But Damage is Not Disclosed

Now, the other scenario when a car that is advertised as new may not actually be new is when it is damaged before it is sold to the new buyer. So you might say, “Well, how on earth does the new car get damaged?” Well, it happens all the time. It could be damaged on a test drive. It could be damaged where a lot attendant backs into something or hit something. It could be damaged being transported from a factory. It could be damaged during a DX, which is a dealer exchange. But the point is, there are many opportunities for a new car to sustain damage before somebody buys it.

In a recent case, a man went to go buy a new vehicle. After taking possession of it, he happened to look in the glove box a few days later and he discovered repair orders for work that had been performed at the dealership to the tune of about $2,000. So he went back and he said, “What is this? Did you guys do the work?” And the dealer said, “Yeah, we did it.” And he said, “Well, I want a new car, not a damaged car.” And they said, “Take a hike.” So he called us and we filed the lawsuit and the case is actually ongoing.

Maryland New Car Damage Disclose Requirements

But what’s interesting is, in Maryland at least, there’s a damage threshold. If the repair bill for the damage to a new car, which is defined as a car that has not yet been titled, if the damage repair costs are more than 3% of the MSRP, there is a written disclosure that dealers are required to provide to the customer for the exact reason that the customer, at least in Maryland is entitled to know, “This car, although is not yet been titled, has been damaged.”

And of course, some people might say, “I don’t care. Give me some money off.” And others might say, “No, a new car means a new car to me. I want something that’s not messed up at all. I don’t want to have to worry about were repairs done right. I don’t want it.” But the point is that puts the customer on notice that the new car was damaged and then they can decide, “Do I want to go down this road or do I want a real new car?”

The Maryland Administrative Regulation, COMAR 11.12.01.14(K) addressing damage disclosure on new cars can be viewed in full here, and is also below:

J. Vehicle Damage Disclosure.

(1) If, before consummating the sale of a vehicle which has never been titled, the vehicle has sustained either body damage or mechanical damage resulting in repairs which exceed 3 percent of the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price, the dealer shall fully disclose this information in writing to the prospective purchaser. The following apply:

(a) The disclosure shall specify who is providing warranty coverage on the replacement parts; and

(b) The dealer shall disclose any damage which may affect the:

(i) Manufacturer’s warranty;

(ii) Life expectancy of the vehicle; or

(iii) Safety of the vehicle.

(2) Upon request of the prospective purchaser or purchasers, the dealer shall provide a copy of the repair order illustrating the extent of repairs conducted to repair the damage.

(3) If a manufacturer or distributor transfers a vehicle which has never been titled to a dealership, the manufacturer or distributor shall disclose the information contained in §I(2) of this regulation to the dealership, if applicable.

whitney 1 300x178 - When a New Car Has Damage or Was Sold Before - Legal Rights

Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP

The Dealer Sold Me a New Car that Was Not New

Whitney, LLP’s lawyers for auto fraud and car dealer problems represent customers who pay for new cars and find that their car is actually not new. While this seems like an outrageous practice, it actually happens all the time across Maryland. Buyers often find that their new car has hidden damage, or that their new car was actually sold to someone else first

Our lawyers sue car dealerships across Maryland, including Baltimore, Pasadena, Cockeysville, Owings Mills, Temple Hills, Marlow Heights, Middle River, Germantown, Silver Spring, Frederick, Waldorf, Laurel, Glen Burnie, Gaithersburg, Rockville, Ellicott City and Salisbury.

We experience helping car buyers fight back against dishonest dealers in a variety of scams of schemes.

We offer Legal Consultations to car buyers.

Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

Read More

The Car Dealer Stole My Down Payment or Trade In

Watch the Video Below: When a car dealer steals or keeps a down payment after financing was not approved, Maryland buyers can get help.  Whitney, LLP’s dealer fraud lawyers help buyers when the dealer does not return the down payment or trade in after financing is not approved, and the dealer wants their car back.

Maryland’s Spot Delivery Law protects consumers when financing is not approved, which is a common dealer problem that consumers find themselves dealing with in Maryland.

Whitney’s LLP’s attorneys have experience recovering down payments and trade-ins for buyers after financing was not approved and the dealer wants their car back. Consumers have more legal rights than they realize, and we help buyers fight back against dishonest dealers.

 Click Here to Read about our Top 10 Most Common Types of Cases against Car Dealers.

Click Here to read about past car dealer fraud settlements.
Click Here to read blogs about our other car dealer cases, including settlements and other lawsuits we filed.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.  Here is our YouTube Channel  for more videos on car dealer legal issues.

The Car Dealer Stole My Down Payment or Trade In

Edited Transcript is below:

Hi, this is Dan Whitney with the Whitney Law Firm in Towson, Maryland. Today, we’re going to talk about The Car Dealer Stole My Down Payment. So, the question is why would a car dealer steal somebody’s down payment? Do they hate their customers? Maybe. More likely they’re just greedy. And the fact is, they think they can simply get away with stealing the down payment. So I’ve sued many car dealerships here in Maryland, and they are capable of anything. One of the most significant problems that my clients run into here in Maryland is that dealers will steal a down payment and they’ll also sell trade-ins when financing is not approved. And then they leave the customer holding the bag, and they say, “We’re not going to give your down payment back,” or “We’ve already sold your trade in. You’re not going to get it back.” And customers have no idea what to do. It’s such a terrible situation. It’s completely illegal. It’s totally unfair. Yet many dealers do this.

Spot Delivery Is When Financing Has Not Been Approved

Now, in Maryland, there’s something called a spot delivery. And what a spot delivery simply means is a car was delivered to a customer by a dealer and financing has not yet been finally approved. So why is that important? Well, if financing is not finally approved, that means of course it may fall through. And if financing falls through, that means that the customer is not going to be able to finance that car with the bank. And what the dealer’s probably going to do is you’re going to call up the customer and say, “Hey, bring the car back. The deal fell apart. We need our car back.” And that’s it.

Now, in Maryland, when a dealer finds out that financing has not been approved, they have four days from the time of delivery to notify the customer in writing that financing has not been approved. A notice is also required to be given to customers at the time of delivery if financing has not been finally approved at the time of delivery, laying out the customer’s rights. It’s generally called a spot delivery notice. And what the notice sets forth is the customer’s right to be notified within four days, whether or not financing has been approved or if it has not been approved. And if not, the customer has the right. As soon as they return that vehicle to the dealer, they’re entitled to immediately, and that’s in the law, immediately get back their down payment and their trade. And they get back 100% of the down payment.

car dealership lot 300x225 - The Car Dealer Stole My Down Payment or Trade In

Dealers Must Provide Notice of Financing Decline Within 4 Days – But Don’t.

Now, dealers almost never provide written notice within four days. Customers usually find out two, three, four weeks. Sometimes it could be even be months. They find out that financing has not been approved. Now, why is that a problem? That’s a problem because in really in the scope of a week, if somebody turns the trade-in in, they still have their tags. And of course, well, at least in Maryland, if you don’t turn in your license plate, you’re going to start getting fined if the car is no longer insured. So people trade their car in, they think financing is done, they turn their plates into the MVA. And then when they get a call from the dealer saying, “Hey, come get your trade,” they say, “Well, I’ve already turned in my tags. I thought everything was done. You told me financing was approved.” And the dealer says, true to form, “Whatever. I don’t care. Just come get your car or we’re going to have it towed somewhere else.” They don’t care.

Dealers Cannot Keep the Down Payment After Financing is Not Approved

Now, regarding down payments when financing is not approved, what dealers will often say is they’ll call the customer and say, “Okay, financing has not been approved. Bring our car back.” And the customer will say, “Okay, here’s your car. Now give me my trade and give me my down payment.” And the dealer often says regarding the down payment, “Look, you drove our car for free for two, three, four weeks. You put a hundred miles on it. We have to reinspect it. We have to do some touch-up work.” Whatever, none of it matters. They’re required to give a hundred percent of the down payment back, but they will start to come up with excuses as to why the customer is not going to get their down payment back immediately.

For example, in a  case we have against a car dealer here in the Baltimore area where somebody put $5,000 down, our client got called about three weeks after the purchase to come back. And instead of getting their $5,000 down payment back immediately, about three weeks later, they got a check for $135. And the check actually itemized what the deductions for, which doesn’t matter because they’re all illegal deductions. All the down payment has to be refunded immediately after the customer brings the vehicle back when financing is not approved.

Dealers Cannot Sell a Trade Before Financing is Approved

Now, what also happens often is when the dealer actually sells somebody’s trade in before financing isn’t approved. And you would think to yourself, “What kind of wretched organization would do such a thing?” And I would say, drive down a busy street and look to your left and right, and that’s probably who’s going to be doing these things. The new dealers do them, the used dealers do it, they all do.  It’s just a fact of life that dealers sometimes sell the car before financing is approved.

Now, this leaves the customer in a terrible spot. They have a car that they don’t have financing for. The dealer wants it back. The trade in is gone and they don’t know what to do. And often that’s when they call a dealer lawyer or a dealer fraud lawyer like myself to say, “Can you help me?” And the answer is yes, we can probbaly help sue the dealership, and the result will depend in part on where your trade is. Has it really been sold? Is it just waiting at auction to be sold? Sometimes dealers will buy it back from a customer who they sold it to in order to give it back.  And sometimes it shakes out where the customer may be compensated the retail value of the trade that was illegally sold.

whitney 1 300x178 - The Car Dealer Stole My Down Payment or Trade In

Daniel W. Whitney, Sr. and Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP

Lawyers for the Dealer Keeping the Down Payment or Selling the Trade

If you were the victim of a spot delivery fraud or the dealer sold your trade or kept your down payment after financing was not approved, give us a call.

Customers have many legal rights that dealers count on the customers not knowing.

We offer Legal Consultations. Call Whitney, LLP at 410 583 8000, or use our Quick Contact Form, to discuss your potential case.

Read More

WHAT OUR CLIENTS SAY

“When others did not want to take my case Whitney, LLP was willing. Dan was very very patient with me and his communication was always on point no matter how he reached out. He helped me and my family start our lives all over, I thank him so much.”

– Client

Read More Testimonials

“I would definitely recommend this firm. I contacted them just to get some insight and I was informed that I indeed had a case, and they won! Any questions or concerns I had were answered and explained clearly. They were very kind and informative throughout the whole process. I am very grateful that I stumbled across their page, it has changed my life. Thank you.”

– Client

Read More Testimonials

GET YOUR LEGAL CONSULTATION

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Articles

New Lawsuit Filed For $895 PDI Car Dealership Fee
New Lawsuit Filed For $895 PDI Car Dealership Fee

In addition to the advertised price, Maryland dealers can only add fees for taxes, title and registration, and a properly disclosed freight and dealer processing fee. Illegal fees often include PDI, Reconditioning, Inspection, Certification and Transportation fees.

Uncovering a Hidden Camera Problem in Ocean City, MD
Uncovering a Hidden Camera Problem in Ocean City, MD

Invasion of privacy and finding a hidden camera in an Ocean City, MD rental are the last thing most vacationers think of. Imagine arriving at your Ocean City, Maryland vacation rental, ready for a relaxing getaway booked privately or through Airbnb or VRBO. As you...

Airbnb Hidden Cameras Lawsuit Filed in Rockville, MD
Airbnb Hidden Cameras Lawsuit Filed in Rockville, MD

An Airbnb hidden cameras lawsuit was filed by Whitney, LLP against an Airbnb host in Rockville, MD. This blog describes the allegations in the hidden cameras lawsuit filed by Whitney, LLP, including the guests finding hidden cameras disguised as smoke detectors and...

Read More Articles

CONTACT US

WHITNEY, LLP
409 Washington Ave,
Suite 750
Towson, MD 21204
P: (410) 583-8000
F: (800) 893-1239

Disclaimer

An attorney-client relationship is created only once a representation agreement is signed. Prior results are not a guarantee of future results, and all cases are different. This website does not provide legal advice.

ABOUT

Whitney, LLP fights for the injured and deceived. We offer legal consultations.

Connect

© Whitney, LLP | Sitemap | Privacy Policy
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Call Now Button