Kasper Chrysler Dodge Jeep Facing Class Action Over Alleged Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Missteps

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Sandusky, Ohio’s Kasper Chrysler Dodge Jeep has been named in a proposed class action wherein the plaintiff claims the new and used car dealer engages in practices that circumvent the federal Truth in Lending Act’s (TILA) disclosure requirements.

The suit centers on “Regulation Z” of the TILA, which stipulates the form and manner in which creditors such as defendant Sandusky O.K., Inc. must disclose certain information to consumers. Regulation Z, the case notes, mandates that a creditor shall make certain disclosures, i.e. specific credit terms, clearly and conspicuously in writing in a form that a consumer may keep. These disclosures must be made before the consummation of any transaction, the suit says.  

According to the lawsuit, Kasper Chrysler Dodge Jeep’s TILA disclosure practices merely create the appearance of compliance with federal law. The company, the plaintiff alleges, utilizes for vehicle sales a retail installment sales contract (RISC) that, on its surface, looks to present TILA-required disclosures. The defendant allegedly disregards these contracts once a customer signature has been obtained and then moves to repossess proposed class members’ vehicles. From the suit:

“Once purchasers sign the RISC, Defendant treats the credit terms disclosed in the RISC as a nullity, resulting in extreme detriment and injury to Plaintiff and other purchasers.

Defendant repossesses or forces the return of customers’ cars, then exacts from them higher down payments or interest rates than those agreed upon in the RISC; or, alternatively, forces return of the vehicle and then fails to return the consumer’s trade-in vehicle or down payment, charges mileage, and/or charges other fees.”

Per the plaintiff, the case claims the woman in October 2017 entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase a 2013 Hyundai Veloster “in exchange for a $1,350 down payment and an agreed-upon cash price, $13,361.63, at an annual interest rate of 24.7%.” In December, according to the lawsuit, the defendant’s salesman began demanding via text message that the plaintiff return her vehicle, claiming her Hyundai “had to be repossessed” because the dealership would not commit to financing the car. The plaintiff says though she returned her vehicle, the defendant “illegally confiscated” her down payment.