Minnesota Vehicle Repossession Without Proper Notice Class Action

This Minnesota class action alleges that Fifth Third Bank (FTB) repossessed a vehicle without proper notice according to state laws.

The class for this action is all Minnesota consumers who, between June 11, 2014 and June 11, 2018, made at least two late or partial payments on vehicle loans that were accepted by FTB, and who were not sent a Cobb Notice before FTB initiated or attempted repossession of the vehicle.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Sampson took out a loan to buy a 2007 Lincoln MKZ in August 2014. Her mother, co-plaintiff Tracey Lane, cosigned the loan.

The complaint claims that over the course of the loan, Sampson made and FTB accepted late or partial payments, including for February 2015, May 2016, September 2016, December 2016, February 2017, March 2017, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017.

Under Minnesota law, if a creditor has repeatedly accepted late or partial payments on a loan, it must notify the debtor that it requires strict compliance with the terms of the loan before it can undertake repossession. This notice is called a Cobb Notice. However, the complaint claims that neither Sampson nor Lane received any such notice.

Sampson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in March 2017. However, according to the complaint, she reaffirmed the car loan and it was not discharged in bankruptcy.

On July 6, 2017, the complaint says, a repossession company showed up at Sampson’s to take the vehicle. Sampson says she had not had notice of the repossession. The repossession company representative showed her a computer with her name and address listed; according to the complaint, he told her that if there was a mistake, FTB would return the vehicle. She received no paperwork.

When Sampson tried to get further information, the complaint says, she was at first told that she would have to pay the full outstanding amount of her loan, or nearly $6,000, to get the vehicle back. Next she was told that she had to pay $619 plus the repossession cost of $500.

After that Sampson’s husband spoke to someone else who admitted that a payment had been accepted by FTB the day before the repossession. The man went away to get more information, then came back to say, according to the complaint, that he had to end the call because he had “said too much already.” Sampson’s husband asked to speak to a supervisor but the complaint says that the representative did not permit him to.

The next day, Lane tried calling and was told that they would have to pay $619 to get the vehicle back, but that the company had decided to waive the repossession fee. She wired the money and the vehicle was therefore not sold at auction, the complaint says, but the family had still lost the use of the car for several days as well as the time it took to straighten things out. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Improper Repossession, Unlawful Practices