Class Action Claims Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Withholds Mandatory Info from CLEC Customers

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (first filed in November 2017 in Maryland state court) has been removed to federal court.

The lawsuit begins by explaining the defendant extends secure financing to borrowers in Maryland through credit contracts governed by the state’s Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC) statute. The defendant’s business also involves repossessing from borrowers who fail to pay on their CLEC contracts secured property that, the case says, is in turn resold should a customer fail to reinstate his or her contract or redeem the property. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (TMCC) customers whose personal property has been repossessed receive from the company a “right to redemption” notice, the lawsuit says, as well as a “pre-sale notice” indicating the defendant’s intent to sell their personal property and a “post-sale notice” detailing the claimed deficiency still on the account after the sale of the property.

“If a deficiency balance remains on the CLEC credit account after TMCC sells the personal property,” the lawsuit explains, “TMCC pursues collection actions including referring credit accounts to collection attorneys, filing suit against TMCC customers for alleged deficiency balances, selling the open credit accounts to debt buyers or referring the credit account to debt collectors.”

The plaintiff charges that the defendant’s use of the aforementioned “post-sale notices” deprives CLEC customers of information Maryland law mandates they be provided. The case argues that TMCC namely fails to provide the address of the individual who purchased a repossessed vehicle to CLEC customers.

The proposed class covered by the litigation includes:

“All persons whose personal property was repossessed by TMCC in connection with a credit contract governed by CLEC: (1) whose personal property was sold at a private sale; (2) whose post-sale notice did not include the purchaser’s address; and (3) where TMCC collected more than the principal amount of the credit contract.”

The plaintiff previously filed a similar case against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation in October 2017 that was voluntarily dismissed a month later.