Jump to content

Repo Deficiency Question


BRubble
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw a link to a site that contained the following information regarding disputing repossession deficiencies. I would like to know if this really works. I'm sure that the admins have seen this before due to it coming from a link off this site. Please help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter is for the purpose of disputing collection activities on a deficiency from a motor vehicle repossession.

It may be used AFTER 2 years from the date of the repo sale, providing there has been no filed claim for a judgment.

It should not be used if you have been sued, or if the repossession is less than 2 years ago.

It can be used earlier than 2 years from the repo date if you are SURE you received no notices of the sale.

To look up the required data on the vehicle, you will need the VIN #, go to

CARFAX

Send a copy to EACH of the parties CRRR.

Your Name

Your Address

Date

Name Of Collection Agency

Address of CA

Name of Original Creditor

Address of OC

Name of Original Seller (car dealer)

Address of OS

Re:

Account # (ca #)as reported to (list CRA's)

Account # (oc #)

(Make -model -vin# -sale date)

To whom it may concern;

I am writing in regard to the above referenced accounts and transactions.

This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that this account is disputed.

This vehicle was repossessed by (name of OC) in the State of (X) on or about, xx/xx/xxxx, and resold on or about xx/xx/xxxx.

Under the laws of the State of (State of Repo) UCC § 9.506 and State RISA and MVISA statutes a deficiency can not be claimed unless all of the required notices were properly and timely given, and all of the allowable redemption and cure time limits were adhered to.

Please provide copies of the legal notices and proof of the commercially reasonable manner of the resale of the subject vehicle.

If no such proof is provided within 14 days from receipt of this notice, the alleged claim of a deficiency will be considered null and void, and any continued collection activities, or continued reporting of this invalid claim on my credit reports will be considered a violation of the FDCPA and FCRA.

In addition, if you singularly or severally fail to comply with the above requests, I reserve the right to seek damages against all parties, under all available State and Federal statutes and UCC § 9 remedies.

Sincerely,

XXXX

FOLLOW UP DISPUTE LETTER TO CRA

Send this to the CRA if you have NOT received any reply after 14 days,use personalized stationary and send it certified but NOT RR

CRA address

I am writing you regarding account # xxxx on my report #xxxx from XXXX. This account is a fraudulent entry on my report. I have disputed it with (name of OC) and (name of CA). I have no such account from this creditor for this date in this amount.

Please advise me of the manner of any verification of this fraudulent account, and the name and address of the verifying party as I will be taking appropriate legal action and filing complaints with the FTC and (name of your State)Attorney General's Office.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, I don't like the idea of disputing it with the creditor then calling it fraudulent with the CRA.

My understanding is that repo deficiencies are covered by teh UCC 4 yr SOL, so why would they tell you to send it after 2?

Generally, they have to show that they 1) sent you a reasonable authenticated notice of disposition and 2) seel the vehicle in a commercially reasonable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, I don't like the idea of disputing it with the creditor then calling it fraudulent with the CRA.

My understanding is that repo deficiencies are covered by teh UCC 4 yr SOL, so why would they tell you to send it after 2?

Generally, they have to show that they 1) sent you a reasonable authenticated notice of disposition and 2) seel the vehicle in a commercially reasonable manner.

Can't you at least request a condition of sale? I find it odd that they auction these off, rather than put them at a dealership and try to get every penney they can for the vehicle.

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only real experience with this is subject is in Florida. The statutes provide for a "Request for Calculation of Deficiency Balance" that must be provided within 14 days of receipt of request. If not provided within 14 days, the creditor must issue a waiver of claim. If they don't comply, they are liable for statutory damages.

The only reason I can see someone waiting two years, as in the OP, would be that the chances of the creditor or CA having the required info after that length of time is pretty slim. The statute lays out what information must be provided, so a simple "This is what you owe" doesn't cut it.

I wouldn't use the internet letter above, though. Just ask for a calcuation of deficiency balance. The CA probably isn't aware of the statute, so why give them any additional info.

Typical of the garbage found on internet letters ...

Please provide copies of the legal notices and proof of the commercially reasonable manner of the resale of the subject vehicle.

Commercial reasonableness is a question of fact that must be determined by the trier of fact. In fact, in most states, a claim for deficiency balance cannot go forward unless first validated by a court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't you at least request a condition of sale? I find it odd that they auction these off, rather than put them at a dealership and try to get every penney they can for the vehicle.

Elyse

There is nothing really odd about it…

Banks/finance companies, are not in business to retail cars – that’s not what they do and not what they want to do.

They repossess lots of cars every day and their primary interest is in getting whatever funds they can to offset their loss for the least amount of hassle possible with the hope, however slight, of getting the balance from the debtor.

Whole-selling the vehicles at auction is the best way for them to do that and, selling the vehicle that way stops any further liability on tiheir part (all the risk is on the auto dealer buying the auctioned vehicle).

That’s one of the reasons why you don’t ever want to let a vehicle get repossessed if at all possible because once that happens, you loose any control of the situation (not to mention put a BIG black mark on your credit history…it’s always better to retail the car yourself for the best price you can get and then deal with any deficiency.

From the standpoint of the consumer, it would seem prudent for them to go through all the trouble of retailing the car but from the standpoint of the business, it just isn’t worth their time and trouble to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the standpoint of the consumer, it would seem prudent for them to go through all the trouble of retailing the car but from the standpoint of the business, it just isn’t worth their time and trouble to do that.

It is worth their trouble. Believe me. As a business person I'd rather have $10,000 over $2,000 ANY day. But I understand what you're saying. I just hope the write off is good. I truly feel the way they deal with repo's should be revamped. Perhaps a voucher offering the car owner to take it to a contracted dealership for a "voluntary repossession..." that way it can sell to someone who can make those payments. Better for the finance company, better for the consumers. JMHO. I know, I know...it'll be a cold day in hell...but truly, up until coming here a few years back I never knew about "voluntary repossession" or my options at all with regard to it. Sure, I could've tried to sell it--but I'd been layed off and was hoping to get a new job and continue paying it...oh well, woulda coulda shoulda.

It'll also be a cold day in hell before I pay 8,000 for NOTHING. Sorry. They can bite me....lol, yeah..."it just isn't worth my time and trouble..."

Wanting people to pay "the difference" because you were too lazy to take appropriate care of your property is just somehow retarded. That'd be like me buying a pair of jeans for 50.00 and than turning around and selling them for a 1.00 and expecting the manufacturer to give me the remaining 49.00. Stupid. JMO. I mean, sure-I was unable to make my payments...but than they got their property back and CHOSE to sell it for less than it's worth. In what way am I gaining anything? It's like it was leased or rented. Now, I wouldn't mind paying for those months I had the car and didn't make the payments, that I get. Sorry. Guess I'm missing something. :rolleyes:

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your feelings and I suspect anyone who has had a vehicle repossessed feels the same but that’s just it; you are approaching it from the standpoint of one consumer and one repossession. It’s a big issue for you; just another one of many for them.

Consumers also tend to see the “vehicle” and the “financing” as if they are one and the same; again understandable but not accurate. A person’s obligation to the lender and the loan they agreed to pay is very separate both legally and otherwise.

Think of it this way; if a consumer walks into a bank with a valuable stamp collection as collateral and borrows $10K and then the stamp collection is subsequently destroyed in a fire, the loan is still owed and the bank still expects, rightly, to be repaid.

I understand your feelings of frustration but they won’t protect you from eventually paying some or all of the deficiency. I suppose, depending on who you are dealing with, some companies may let small deficiencies “slide” and not make any significant effort to pursue the consumer but I wouldn’t count on that, especially if several thousand dollars are involved.

I also wouldn't get too hopeful that the lender or their agent hasn't followed proper procedure with the repossession and that it would protect you from the deficiency...it happens now and then but these companies are usually pretty good at following the rules. It's worth pursuing to make sure they did everything right but again, I wouldn't bee overly hopeful.

I wish you the best with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said; "I understand your feelings and I suspect anyone who has had a vehicle repossessed feels the same but that’s just it; you are approaching it from the standpoint of one consumer and one repossession. It’s a big issue for you; just another one of many for them."

Excellent point! It's just the reality. The way things in general are set up-we're set up to fail.

XhairX

Thankfully, both my repo I suffered and my dh's that he suffered can be defended under the SOL defense at this point.

Also, as a consumer to me the car is an item I purchased in a transaction, it was returned. I wasn't looking at it as collateral, but that's their loophole with their alleged "reasoning" so I get what you're saying.

In the instance of the stamps, they DID NOT get their stamps back because they were charcoal, so I do think that's a bit different.

Because these people claim they are two separate transactions, they get away with claiming the remainder even though the item used as "collateral" was turned over to them or they otherwise retrieved it. I get it...don't like it, but I get it.

REPO'S ::BigGun::

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a link to a site that contained the following information regarding disputing repossession deficiencies. I would like to know if this really works. I'm sure that the admins have seen this before due to it coming from a link off this site. Please help.

Thanks

You never mentioned how old this debt is or for how much? Unless I missed it somewhere. Also, if this debt IS NOT yours to begin with and IF they have otherwise refused to work with you to resolve said fraud (you've sent letters via CMRRR to no avail to them) than I'd go ahead with formal complaints to FTC, AG (their state and yours) and BBB. I've had to do that in two cases of fraud. The debts simply weren't mine and I wasn't going to continue taking it laying down. At the very least, the accts need to be noted as "in dispute" on your CR's. Have you considered filing an ID theft complaint?

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree a bit. :)

We (as consumers) often forget that we are talking about legal transactions here...while consumer debt is a heavily marketed product, it is consumers like you and I that decide to take loans. What I'm getting at is that it's not the lender's fault if the stamps burn up or the if we lost our job and couldn't make the payments any longer and none of those issues, as real as they may be, protect us from having to pay the debt.

And we especially seem to have this "bling spot" when it comes to our cars; I suppose because so many of us define ourselves and a lot of our ability to "live" is tied up with what we drive (or don't drive).

Sometimes we get lucky (or the lenders get stupid or lazy) but that doesn't happen too oftern. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree a bit. :)

We (as consumers) often forget that we are talking about legal transactions here...while consumer debt is a heavily marketed product, it is consumers like you and I that decide to take loans. What I'm getting at is that it's not the lender's fault if the stamps burn up or the if we lost our job and couldn't make the payments any longer and none of those issues, as real as they may be, protect us from having to pay the debt.

And we especially seem to have this "bling spot" when it comes to our cars; I suppose because so many of us define ourselves and a lot of our ability to "live" is tied up with what we drive (or don't drive).

Sometimes we get lucky (or the lenders get stupid or lazy) but that doesn't happen too oftern. :)

My point to you though is that in the case with the stamps, they were provided as collateral on a loan? Correct? The stamps burned and you're saying we're still obligated to continue paying on the loan? I mean honestly, it isn't as though I defaulted on the loan and gave them the stamps that SUPPOSEDLY was collateral to back it up. But on that note, I agree. Absolutely.

But, what I don't agree on is them collecting their collateral when we default AND large amounts of money to boot because they're too lazy to handle their collateral once they collect it. That's all. Make sense? Granted, we all know most vehicles depreciate. There should be some STANDARD per year on what these vehicles are worth that even THEY must follow. But no, it isn't their fault I couldn't pay my loan. Absolutely not. And I'm not a poster here that would ever promote people not paying their bills...I just don't want to sit back and watch people get a broom handle up their arse with no vaseline in the process.

LOL...in my repo situation they even got a ticket after they repo'd it and tried to bill me for it!

Granted, they provided the loan and paid that initial amount for the vehicle on my behalf...I get that. So--but yeah, I can't help it if they chose to take a loss on the collateral.

It's sad to think that they're doing SOOO many repo's though that they have to go the auction route.

And I don't care what I drive, I'll ride a bicycle if I have to. LOL.

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly feel the way they deal with repo's should be revamped.

Elyse

Actually, it has been revamped already. As recently as 1990, many states still had laws stating that a creditor could not both repossess collateral and seek payment of the loan (including deficiencies). I recall an old Florida case (can't remember the parties right now) from circa 1930 or so, which was still being cited into the 90's. It's a fairly recent development that allows lenders to repossess the security and come after deficiencies. It's a sweet deal for them. Imagine paying 3 or 4 years on a 5 year loan, falling upon hard times, then losing your car only to find that you've practically paid nothing but the interest on the loan for three years. They've made their money, they get to sell the car for whatever they want and you still owe them for the principle on the loan.

It really sucks when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it has been revamped already. As recently as 1990, many states still had laws stating that a creditor could not both repossess collateral and seek payment of the loan (including deficiencies). I recall an old Florida case (can't remember the parties right now) from circa 1930 or so, which was still being cited into the 90's. It's a fairly recent development that allows lenders to repossess the security and come after deficiencies. It's a sweet deal for them. Imagine paying 3 or 4 years on a 5 year loan, falling upon hard times, then losing your car only to find that you've practically paid nothing but the interest on the loan for three years. They've made their money, they get to sell the car for whatever they want and you still owe them for the principle on the loan.

It really sucks when you think about it.

Thank you Nascar, GOD I LOVE YOU. I was starting to feel like cotton for brains!!! Yes, it does suck. I'm thinking of constructing some letters for legislators actually. Something has to change. And if you think about it, in the end there'd be a way for BOTH consumers AND financers to win.

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happened the beginning of July 2004 and for over $9000. I had been laid off for months and parked the car for about a month due to some mechanical problems I definately could not afford to have repaired. My phone had been disconnected and the lender was sending people by my families homes in Texas and harrassing them. They even went by as far as to call my sister's boyfriends home telling him that he had committed a felony by selling my car and if he did not give them my number he was going to jail. He retails auction cars and I had not seen this guy for at least 10 years. I got an email about all of this and was pissed. They were calling people not related to me in a city I had not lived in in over 13 years telling them I was breaking the law. This had to be illegal. Sorry for all of the background cause it may not be important. Bottom line is when I got my phone back on, I called them and told them to come pickup the car and there was an axle problem so it needed to be towed. I asked them why they did the above and questioned the legality of it when the car was obviously parked next to my building for weeks. When they said that it was legal, I said that the conversations were recorded by the individuals they called and they hung up the phone. After that I got call after call threatening for me to pay them or go to jail. They never picked up the car and it was a week later. This went on until one of them called and left a VM saying he was from the FBI and gave me a number. I in turned called the local field office of the FBI in Chicago and had an agent call the person at the number that was left. Needless to say, they picked up the car the same day. Now the OC has listed on my reports that they could not locate me for 9 months. I am not ever paying them a dime. I was going to sue them because they precripted my phone and utility accounts among other things and changed some things on my accounts. That is probably why I have not been sued by them. They know that I will come after them with an identity theft claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will give my 2 cents worth. I have been through this situation(s) and prevail against a creditor. I read a reply post that stated that banks are very good about following procedures after repo...Hmmm....not true at all becausr there are so many things that cover repo procedures before, during and after. There are standard procedures layed out in the ucc (uniform commercial code article 9) concerning notices and the language that must be contain within, whether sale was carried out in a commercially reasonable manner and giving accounting to debtor in a timely manner after resale of vehicle. In that accounting they must show how proceeds from sale was applied, if any deficiency/surplus they must show how they calculated to come up with this amount. One can also request for accounting of vehicle and if one doesn't recieve a reply within 14 days ($500) violation!!!! If any part of the ucc is violated any defiency can be voided for failure to comply. Another thing is to look at your states RISA laws(Retail Installment Sales Act) which states that after sell you should be rebated (like a prepayment) and unearned cedit interest should be credited. Here's the big thing with RISA, if any part of this is violated it would be looked at as fraud and damages are then treble(3 times ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Miamitru...

The unearned credit interest...where do I find out this information? I had a leased vehicle that was repo'd in January 2006. I received a summons in Feb 2007 that I answered. Can I get all the information the other lawer has? I do not recall being notified of any sale of the car or monies owed to them. I have read the UCC but I am not sure I fully understand it. Plus, I want ALL the information I can get before I go to court. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello Robert_Nashville,

We are one example where the OC didn't follow the rules concerning our vehicle repossession, so it does happen once in awhile. Our vehicle was repossessed in Jan 08, and we received absolutely nothing in terms of a notice of disposition before the sale of the car, or a written explanation of Surplus or Deficiency, after the car was sold, actually we have no proof the car was sold. The first we heard of anything having to do with the car, after it was picked up at our house, is when we got a collection letter from a JDB.

So we are now in the process of disputing the debt, with the JDB. and also requesting proof from the OC that they furnished us with the required documents, and requesting the Explanation of Surplus or Deficiency from the OC and the JDB.

So we will see how it goes. :?

Regards,

Punky

I understand your feelings and I suspect anyone who has had a vehicle repossessed feels the same but that’s just it; you are approaching it from the standpoint of one consumer and one repossession. It’s a big issue for you; just another one of many for them.

Consumers also tend to see the “vehicle” and the “financing” as if they are one and the same; again understandable but not accurate. A person’s obligation to the lender and the loan they agreed to pay is very separate both legally and otherwise.

Think of it this way; if a consumer walks into a bank with a valuable stamp collection as collateral and borrows $10K and then the stamp collection is subsequently destroyed in a fire, the loan is still owed and the bank still expects, rightly, to be repaid.

I understand your feelings of frustration but they won’t protect you from eventually paying some or all of the deficiency. I suppose, depending on who you are dealing with, some companies may let small deficiencies “slide” and not make any significant effort to pursue the consumer but I wouldn’t count on that, especially if several thousand dollars are involved.

I also wouldn't get too hopeful that the lender or their agent hasn't followed proper procedure with the repossession and that it would protect you from the deficiency...it happens now and then but these companies are usually pretty good at following the rules. It's worth pursuing to make sure they did everything right but again, I wouldn't bee overly hopeful.

I wish you the best with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.