Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed.
Please read the removal notice carefully. Your post falls into one or more (but not necessarily all) of the following categories:
We are trying to dial back the negativity that is currently rampant in the subreddit. This topic tends to bring a lot of angry drive-by commenters. No, the subject isn't banned, just metered so other topics have a chance to gain traction as well.
Please read the [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules) and the [chain of action](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/chain_of_action) regarding removed submissions and moderator actions before continuing to post. If you have any questions, please **read the [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/rules)** first and feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fcars) if you still have concerns.
Please **do not send PMs or chat requests** to individual moderators. They will not reply.
If you can’t secure the financing you don’t get the car. This is more on the bank since they provided a preliminary approval.
I agree what the buyer is doing here is hilarious, but if you can’t get financed at a Kia dealership, that’s likely a you problem.
She was approved and then the lender rescinded the approval stating insufficient income to substantiate the loan. That’s the lender’s fault though and it shouldn’t have resulted in a repo. Especially since there’s NO information stating she had issues paying. Why take the car back IF there’s no issues with the customer paying the loan that was approved by the lender themselves?
It’s not a repo though, it’s called unwinding a deal due to inability to secure financing. A repo happens when you don’t pay your bills. The car was never hers to begin with, the whole contract is contingent on financing being approved, it’s void otherwise.
This had nothing to do with the dealer. They would’ve much rather just sold the car and have the deal go through.
This is due to the customers poor income and/or credit which prevented them from securing a loan.
Likely what happened is that the customer supplied income information and was conditionally approved based on that information. The dealer did a spot delivery (most deliveries are since they're not funded for at least a few days). Bank asked for proof of income. Customer either ignored the request or didn't provide enough documentation to account for all of the income stated. Bank refused to fund the loan. At this point, there is no longer any deal. The dealer calls the customer to ask for their car back. Customer ignores or refuses to return the car. At this point, there's not much difference between them keeping the car and it being a stolen vehicle. Dealer locates the car and initiates a repo to get their car back.
It's hard to see where the dealer is at fault here if that's what happened. This is how car deals are done every day across the country. Most of the time, customers will return the car, get different financing on their own, or the dealer will come back with another lender option. But sometimes customers simply choose to return the car and pretend like it never happened. Bottom line, the customer is probably lucky this didn't go to the authorities. It probably could have after over a month of the dealer trying to get their car back unsuccessfully.
Probably 99 times out of 100 there are no problems. I think if people had to wait until the loan was funded to get their car, a lot of deals wouldn't happen at all. Being able to drive off the lot with a new car is a powerful drug.
Not sure how it is in Ohio, but the installment contract in Michigan is signed with the dealership. If the bank falls through, then the dealership would have to carry the terms of the loan itself.
Since dealerships don't really like to do this, they'd either find financing for the new owner, or eat the costs and subsidize financing for the new owner.
At this point, the dealership (in Michigan) would have stolen the vehicle and it wouldn't be a "repossession," as long as she were in compliance with the finance contract she signed with the dealership.
Yeah, in all honesty, and despite the inclination to enjoy the schadenfreude, this very likely isn’t the dealership’s fault.
But it sure as hell is funny. I’d hate to be the guy who forgot to renew the business registration.
This is a pretty funny/interesting story.
But as a lawyer I am pretty surprised the trial court lumped in the business registration issue with the arbitration clause in the purchase & financing agreement. That's a huge miss and was rightfully reversed. No idea what that judge was thinking.
Arbitration clauses are probably under more scrutiny after Disney the giant media storm around Disney trying to avoid a wrongful death lawsuit for one of their resort restaurants because the family had a Disney+ account. Baking those into everything doesn't give infinite legal protections.
Correction, it was a restaurant in their outdoor mall. They don't operate the restaurant in any way, they just lease the spot to the restaurant owner and list it on the Disney website.
They were being sued for wrongful death because the website hosted the menu of the restaurant, and they argued that the victim had agreed to arbitration regarding the website when they agreed to the terms in their Disney+ account.
I mean, Disney is basically a law firm with a very profitable media department. They successfully pushed around the state of Florida in the courts, might as well try some stuff (though this particular approach was a bit too much).
Question for you so I don't have to speculate: since the dealership's name is legally hers, can she prevent them from using "Taylor Kia of Lima" on all documents? And if so, could she sell the name to them and make out better than the value of that K5?
Realistically, they should probably settle and give her what she wants (which is probably cash) in exchange for her dropping the fraud lawsuit and agreeing to transfer the registration for the name back. I don't know every state's law, but sometimes you can invalidate a registration if there isn't a bona fide use for it. For them, the legal fees definitely aren't worth the squeeze and the dealer group should just settle.
Kind of like when Disney tried to force arbitration on a suit for wrongful death at Disney World because of a clause in the Disney+ subscription ToS, although in that case I think Disney withdrew the argument instead of letting the court decide.
“I’m going to need you to track down all of the cars you’ve sold, and remove the name I own from the back bumper/trunk, and remove the license plate frames too.”
It takes a special kind of talent to lose a sale and lose your business name to the same person in the same week. That’s not just bad luck. That’s spectacular incompetence.
40 Comments
cars-ModTeam@reddit
NCSUGrad2012@reddit
max_power1000@reddit
Harryhodl@reddit
max_power1000@reddit
EpicLegendX@reddit
max_power1000@reddit
xaviier49@reddit
max_power1000@reddit
cannibalcorpuscle@reddit
PCPrincipal2016@reddit
EpicLegendX@reddit
DJMagicHandz@reddit
bschmidt25@reddit
GriefTheBro@reddit
bschmidt25@reddit
balthisar@reddit
Ruscidero@reddit
IStillLikeBeers@reddit
llamacohort@reddit
leommari@reddit
EpicLegendX@reddit
BikingEngineer@reddit
strongmanass@reddit
IStillLikeBeers@reddit
strongmanass@reddit
Will-have-had@reddit
6158675309@reddit
BathingInSoup@reddit
POSVETT@reddit
iamkeerock@reddit
Mindfulmanners@reddit
DonkeyFuel@reddit
fairlyallthere@reddit
fairlyallthere@reddit
fairlyallthere@reddit
Aprilias@reddit
bgarza18@reddit
Thejeepwrangler@reddit
Trashy_pig@reddit