fbpx

M&T Bank Auto Repossessions and Pennsylvania Law Class Action

This class action brings suit against M&T Bank Corporation and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (also known as M&T Bank), for its procedures and practices in the repossessing and foreclosing on vehicles under auto loans. The complaint alleges that M&T does not follow Pennsylvania laws on consumer disclosure notices and other practices.

In addition to failing to send required consumer disclosure notices to auto loan borrowers at repossession, the complaint alleges M&T has done other unlawful things, including “failing to include an accurate description of a debtor[’s] liability for a disputed deficiency balance[], transferring the customer’s title to and selling chattel mistakenly, [and] improperly collecting payments towards debts that have been extinguished.”

The case has five Pennsylvania plaintiffs and details what happened in each case of repossession by M&T. For example, M&T foreclosed on plaintiff Gene E. Daisey’s vehicle in February 2013. To do the repossession, M&T hired Millennium Capital Recovery Corporation, which in turn hired Don’s Auto.

Daisey was sent a Form 1 Notice of Repossession that detailed what it called “the full amount you owe (not just the past due payments), including our expenses. To redeem the Vehicle you must pay the full amount set forth below…”

The list of costs included an “Expense of storing the Vehicle” at $175, supposedly $35 a day for five days, and an “Expense of preparing/repairing the Vehicle for sale” at $200. The total shown was $1,572.28.

However, the complaint alleges that M&T had not incurred any expense, paid to any third party, that related to storage or preparing/repairing Daisey’s vehicle—or, the complaint alleges, “the Bank only incurred an expense of approximately $8.00 a day for only a few days.

Daisey paid “at least” $1,572.28, the complaint alleges, which is the total amount shown on the document for buying back his vehicle. The payment was accepted. However, according to the complaint, M&T did not follow the requirements of the law:

It refused to return the vehicle until he paid additional amounts that were not disclosed in the document he’d been given.

It did not return his vehicle to a location in his county; instead, he had to drive approximately fifty miles to Don’s Auto in a different county.

It did not return title to him until he “made additional monthly payments which totaled approximately $2,466.13.

The other plaintiffs have similar stories, with the complaint alleging similar overcharges and violations.

The complaint alleges M&T did not behave in good faith or a commercially reasonable manner, added fake expenses in the Notice of Repossession, and otherwise did not complay with Pennsylvania law.

The complaint proposes a Form 1NOR Class, a Form 2 NOR Class, and a Post Sale Notice Class, which are detailed on pages 26-28 of the complaint linked below.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

M&T Bank Auto Repossessions and Pennsylvania Law Complaint

March 18, 2021

This class action brings suit against M&T Bank Corporation and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (also known as M&T Bank), for its procedures and practices in the repossessing and foreclosing on vehicles under auto loans. The complaint alleges that M&T does not follow Pennsylvania laws on consumer disclosure notices and other practices.

M&T Bank Auto Repossessions and Pennsylvania Law Complaint

Case Event History

M&T Bank Auto Repossessions and Pennsylvania Law Complaint

March 18, 2021

This class action brings suit against M&T Bank Corporation and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (also known as M&T Bank), for its procedures and practices in the repossessing and foreclosing on vehicles under auto loans. The complaint alleges that M&T does not follow Pennsylvania laws on consumer disclosure notices and other practices.

M&T Bank Auto Repossessions and Pennsylvania Law Complaint
Tags: Improper Repossession, Unfair Vehicle Repossession