June 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 179

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Car Dealership That Sets Terms of Credit Must Comply With Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), creditors who deny credit or change the terms of credit arrangements must notify applicants of the specific reasons why.  At issue in the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Tyson v. Sterling Rental, Inc. is whether a “middle man” like a car dealership is a “creditor” that must meet the ECOA’s notice requirement.  The Sixth Circuit held that yes, car dealerships and other intermediaries qualify as “creditors” that must provide notice of adverse actions if they participate in financing arrangements for their customers.

In Tyler, the Plaintiff made a down payment for a used car from defendant Car Source.  For the rest of the car’s cost, Plaintiff was put on a financing plan.  Plaintiff provided pay stubs and bank statements to Car Source, and Car Source set the terms of the financing agreement by inputting Plaintiff’s financial information into a computer program.  Car Source then assigned the agreement to a third party, Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”), which ordinarily would provide Car Source an advance if it was satisfied with the financing terms.  In this case, however, the terms were based on an overestimation of Plaintiff’s monthly income, either due to an error by the salesperson or the computer program.  Discovering the discrepancy, CAC refused to pay Car Source an advance.

Car Source demanded that the customer come back to the store and pay an additional payment of $1,500 to keep the car.  It is undisputed that Plaintiff was never provided with written notice explaining why the terms of her credit arrangement were changed.  The primary issue on appeal was instead whether Car Source is a “creditor” for purposes of the ECOA who was required to provide notice.  The statute defines such creditors as those who “in the ordinary course of business, regularly participate[] in a credit decision, including setting the terms of the credit.”

Car Source argued that it was merely a middle man between the applicant and CAC, to whom the financing agreement was assigned.   The Sixth Circuit disagreed, noting that Car Source set the terms of the deal, bore the consequences of the financing falling through, and made the unilateral decision to change the terms of the existing credit arrangement.  Adopting the Seventh Circuit’s “continuum” analysis, the court held that even “middle men” such as dealerships are required to provide notice so long as they regularly participate in credit decisions.  The court also concluded that injunctive relief is available to private parties under the plain language of the ECOA, and it reinstated Plaintiff’s statutory claim for conversion under Michigan law.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 251
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Lauren S. Kuley Appellate & Supreme Court Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Cincinnati, OH
Partner

Lauren Kuley is co-chair of the Appellate & Supreme Court Practice. She leads complex appeals and critical motions practice in courts nationwide. She simplifies complex issues and develops creative arguments to curtail legal disputes and overturn bad outcomes. Deploying this strategy, Lauren has argued and won reversals of significant verdicts on appeal and obtained dismissal of high-stakes claims at the pleading stage in federal courts. In the US Supreme Court, Lauren authored the briefs leading to a unanimous reversal for a Fortune 500 company. Lauren previously served in the Ohio...

513-361-1241
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement