Complaint Review: North Point Mitsubishi - San Antonio Texas

Big thorn you state that Paul told you that it was not in issue for me to receive my contract. That is complete bull. I kept calling the sales person asking to get my contract and the sales person kept giving me excuses of why I couldn't get it then. I then talked to the New car sales manager and he told me that it is there policy not to give contracts to the customer the day you buy the car. They deliver the contract to the customer when the plates come in. Mind you plates take a couple weeks to arrive. thanks for you time.

This Rip Off Report is a perfect reason as to why www.ripoffreport.com is so valuable to consumers. It is high time we have something better then the BBB. Ate talking to the Victim (Stacy D) I feel that this dealer is run by big slimballs. In my opinion David Roth, David Boswell and the A Hole that hung up on me named Paul Taveras are all SLIME BALLS. One question I have is Who is Charles T Barret JR? Does he own this car dealer whom I feel is deceptive? Thinking I need a clear puncture as to what happened, I call Paul Taveras one of the F&I Clowns. I asked him "why did you not give Stacy a copy of all of the documents you had her sign? He said it was not an issue, she never asked for copies of anything. Sounds to me like he was hiding something until he got a Slimeball bank to pick up the paper. Car dealers love to have the buyers sign all kinds of crap and kick the buyer out, then the deception all takes place. Most car dealers lie to banks all of the time. None of this would have happened if the bank that agreed to the deal would have called the car buyer and said, "Hey Stacy did you agree to $4400 of the extras this dealer has printed on your contract? It sure seems to me that most banks are in bed with the dirty car dealers. why would a bank not call the buyer and confirm all that was submitted by the car dealer? Because the dealers and the banks share the same mattress at the same time. God only knows what happens between the sheets after the car buyer goes home with their new car. I feel that which ever bank picked up this paper should call the buy, VICTIM' and re-contract or unwind the entire car deal. Now help for the victim. Stacy most car dealers never fear the car buyer until they are in font of a jury. No car dealer wants you to tell a jury about what has happened to you. The jury is made up of consumers just like you and I. Most all consumers hate car dealers and car dealers know it. Stacy here below is your state Ag's main office. Call them up and ask fro their fax number. Then fax them a "Printer Friendly Version" Of your rip Off Report. Texas: Greg Abbott (R) (512) 463-2100 Capitol Station, P.O.Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711-2548 http://www.oag.state.tx.us Your local AG's offices should also have a copy of your rip Off Report, don't you agree Stacy? Aaron Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection/San Antonio Regional Office Office of the Attorney General 115 East Travis St., Suite 925 San Antonio, TX 78205-1615 210-224-1007 Fax: 210-225-1075 Call up these clowns and try to get their fax number. If you are lucky fax them a copy Customer Relations Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America 6400 Katella Ave. Cypress, CA 90630-0064 Toll free: 1-800-MITSU-2000 Web site: www.mitsubishimotors.com I also feel that your state's banking commissioner should have a chance to read your Rip Off Report. Randall S. James, Banking Commissioner Texas Department of Banking 2601 North Lamar Austin, TX 78705 512-475-1300 Toll free in TX: 1-877-276-5554 Fax: 512-475-1313 Web site: www.banking.state.tx.us Would be VERY cool if you fax a copy to Washington DC's Department of Banking & Financial Institutions 1400 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202-727-1563 Fax: 202-727-1290 Web site: www.dbfi.dc.gov The FTC should not be left out of reading your Rip Off Report. Consumer Response Center Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20580 Toll free: 1-877-FTC-HELP (877-382-4357) TDD/TTY: 202-326-2502 Web site: www.ftc.gov Now Stacy I have taken some time to locate some email addresses of attorneys in your area. Email them all and ask them to read your Rip Off Report. Maybe you will get lucky and find an attorney that has a set of big balls and is willing to go up against this car dealer. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] I truly hope this will help you Stacy. It is time these dirty car dealers get what is coming to them. Remember my motto, Go Deep, it feels much better! I trully hope I am the most wooden irritator of car dealer scum worldwide!

Dear North Point Mitsubishi Customer: Consider this, it sounds like a clear violation of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act, see a lawyer FAST !: Truth in Lending "In A Form The Consumer May Keep" Lots of consumer protection regulations that require disclosures contain rules about timing, format, and form of disclosures. There are rules that apply to signatures and even a few that mandate type size. Truth in Lending is no exception. Truth in lending has a variety of rules - in a variety of places - that dictate that certain disclosures, such as the APR, must be more prominent than other disclosures. TIL has some timing requirements, such as those for ARM, credit card, and HELOC disclosures. One of Truth in Lending's disclosure rules is that disclosures must be provided to the customer "in a form the consumer may keep." The timing requirement is that these disclosures be provided to the consumer "before consummation." This sounds pretty straightforward. Creditors and regulators alike have treated it as such. "In a form the consumer may keep" was understood to mean that the customer should be able to take the disclosures home and keep them - in whatever file the consumer should choose. The disclosures are a form, and taking the form away from the table is keeping. Isn't it? Timing has been understood to mean that the creditor must show the disclosures to the consumer before asking the consumer to sign the credit obligation. This meets the timing requirement. Doesn't it? At least one federal judge doesn't think so. The judge in Polk v. Crown Auto drew some disturbing conclusions about Truth in Lending, disclosure forms, and timing requirements. This judge thinks that when you put together the requirements for "in a form the consumer may keep" with "before consummation" the disclosure ceremony must take place - both the giving and the keeping, that is - before the contract is signed. All of this must happen - including the consumer's ability to fold up the disclosures and place them in his or her pocket - before the contract is signed. This is an interesting, if bizarre, approach to thinking about how "reasonable" consumers behave. The judge's reasoning assumes that the consumer, prior to signing on the note's dotted line, will carefully read and consider the Truth in Lending disclosure, draw conclusions about the APR and finance charge, consider carefully the fact that the lender is taking a security interest in the car the consumer is purchasing (and eager to drive away in), fold up the TIL disclosures and place them in a convenient pocket. All of this should happen before consummation, before signing. Then and only then should the customer get down to the business of signing the note. The truth is that consumers don't behave this way. They want the loan and they want the car - now. Another truth (sad but true) is that consumers don't study the TIL disclosures before signing the note. The only time consumers seem to study the TIL disclosures is when they are in default and their attorney asks for all the forms. The court supported the conclusion by citing the credit shopping goals of TIL. Congress' stated purpose in enacting Truth in Lending was to encourage credit shopping. The Act was to provide "meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available." So where does this decision leave creditors? Unless and until the Federal Reserve clarifies the situation by revising either Regulation Z or the Official Staff Commentary to Regulation Z, creditors are in limbo. The opinion flies in the face of years of accepted practice, including the FRB's tolerance of the type of combined form used by Crown Auto. However, the opinion interprets the law and, at least in the Fourth Circuit, is law. Cautious creditors should take steps to ensure that the disclosures are provided to the consumer before the consumer signs the note. Loan officers should be trained to explain the TIL disclosures, give the form to the consumer to review, and then and only then begin the signing process. Truth In Lending Act The Truth In Lending Act requires the disclosure of credit terms prior to entry into a consumer credit contract. These disclosures which include the annual percentage rate, amount financed, finance charge, amount and timing of payments, etc. must be in writing in a form the consumer may keep. Common violations include: The Two Note Case The two-note case is where the consumer is required to sign a contract which does not give the TILA disclosures, either containing no terms of financing or only partial, incomplete disclosures. At a later date, the consumer is required to sign a contract containing all of the required information. But the TILA information comes too late; the consumer is already bound. Common areas of this violation are car sales and home improvements. The seller will have the consumer sign a contract without the TILA disclosures and later have the consumer sign another contract containing the TILA disclosures. Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act hung Crown AUTO in Federal Court for the above violations. Filed: July 21, 2000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2539 (CA-99-11-4) Chrisom Polk, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Crown Auto, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed June 28, 2000, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 1 -- the status is changed from "UNPUBLISHED" to "PUBLISHED." On the cover sheet, section 6 -- the status line is corrected to read "Affirmed by published per curiam opinion." On page 2, section 1 -- the reference to use of unpublished opinions as precedent is deleted. For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CHRISOM POLK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2539 CROWN AUTO, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-11-4) Argued: June 9, 2000 Decided: June 28, 2000 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and Richard L. WILLIAMS, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. _________________________________________________________________ Reversed and remanded by published per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Thomas Dean Domonoske, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. James A.L. Daniel, DANIEL, VAUGHAN, MEDLEY & SMITHERMAN, P.C., Danville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Elmer R. Woodard, III, Danville, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert J. Smitherman, Elizabeth B. Carroll, DANIEL, VAUGHAN, MEDLEY & SMITHERMAN, P.C., Danville, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Chrisom Polk sued Crown Auto, Inc., for violating the Truth-in- Lending Act ("TILA") when it sold him a truck. The district court granted Crown Auto's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. I. Polk purchased a truck from Crown Auto in February 1999. Prior to the consummation of the transaction to sell the truck, Crown Auto explained the credit terms to Polk, but did not disclose the terms to him in writing in a form he could take with him. Polk then entered into two Retail Installment Sales Contracts ("RISCs") with Crown Auto to purchase the truck. After both parties signed the RISCs, Polk was given copies of the RISCs, which included the terms of credit in writing. After Crown Auto repossessed Polk's truck when he failed to make payments, Polk sued Crown Auto. He claimed that Crown Auto vio- lated TILA by not properly disclosing the terms of credit to him before consummation of the sale. The district court granted summary judgment to Crown Auto. Polk appeals. II. Truth In Lending Act requires the seller to disclose the terms of credit to the buyer. Regulation Z specifies how the disclosure should be made: (a) Form of disclosures. (1) The creditor shall make the disclosures required by this subpart clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form that the consumer may keep. (b) Time of disclosures. The creditor shall make disclosures before consummation of the transaction. 12 C.F.R. 226.17 ("Regulation Z"). Polk argues that Crown Auto violated Regulation Z when it failed to make the required disclosures to him in writing, in a form that he could keep, before consummation of the transaction. The district court held that subpart (a) should be read indepen- dently of subpart (b), and that therefore Crown Auto could make dis- closures in writing and in a form that Polk could keep after consummation, as long as it made disclosures in some form before consummation. Crown Auto concedes that it did not make disclosures to Polk in writing, in a form that he could keep, before consumma- tion. Thus, the sole question in this appeal is whether a seller is required to make the required disclosures in writing and in a form the consumer can keep before consummation, or whether Regulation Z is satisfied as long as the disclosures are made in some form before con- summation and the consumer later receives the disclosures in writing, in a form that he can keep. It is possible to read the regulation as the district court did as requiring disclosure of all information prior to consummation of the transaction but not requiring that the written disclosure occur prior to the transaction. For instance, subpart (b) does not read "shall make the disclosures," but rather says only "shall make disclosures." Whereas, subpart (a) reads "shall make the disclosures required by this subpart." Therefore, one could argue that subpart (b) does not refer to the same disclosures as does subpart (a). However, on balance, we believe that the plain meaning of the reg- ulation must be understood to be that written disclosure in the form specified in subpart (a) must be provided to the consumer at the time specified in subpart (b). That is, Crown Auto was required to make the disclosures to Polk in writing, in a form that he could keep, before consummation of the transaction. Not only are we satisfied that this is the plain meaning of the provi- sion, but this interpretation comports with Congress' intent to require "meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him." 15 U.S.C. 1601(a). By having the terms of credit disclosed in a form that he can take with him, the creditor can more readily com- pare those terms to the terms offered by other sellers. Moreover, the language of the statute also supports this position. See 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(1) (stating "the disclosures required under subsection (a) shall be made before the credit is extended"). We, therefore, conclude that the district court erred in holding that Crown Auto met the requirements of Regulation Z. We reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to Crown Auto, and remand the case for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff on lia- bility and for a determination of appropriate relief. REVERSED AND REMANDED