Class notice goes out this week in connection with settlement of Kimiya Young and Patricia Lee v Rudolph Incorporated, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2009-00064451.  Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg filed this class action against Rudolph Incorporated challenging its post-repossession practices.  Rudolph will extinguish $1,761,322.31 in outstanding debt for each of the 385 settlement class members.  The class is made up of consumers who purchased and financed a motor vehicle a pursuant to a retail installment sales contract that was assigned to Rudolph or its affiliates; whose vehicle was repossessed; and to whom Rudolph sent a deficiency notice between November 19, 2005 and December 13, 2011. The class excludes approximately 45 consumers who Rudolph sued and obtained a judgment before September 10, 2010.  A handful of consumers (about 5) paid some amount of money toward the deficiency, and they will automatically get a full refund for the amount they paid.
All class members will receive the benefit of full debt relief and Rudolph promises to notify the credit reporting agencies that the negative trade line is to be deleted, thereby clearing the class members credit history of this alleged debt.

Final approval is expected later this spring.

On July 1, 2011, the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco granted final approval and certified a settlement class in the case entitled Richardson et al v Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. et al. (Case No. CGC-08-481662).  Class representatives Terry Frank Richardson and Calletano Rueda brought a consumer class action complaint against Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., Wells Fargo Financial California, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively “Wells Fargo”) alleging that Wells Fargo had violated California consumer protection law in the way it had handled the sending of a statutory notice of consumers’ right to reinstate or redeem their contracts, after repossession and prior to sale of their vehicles, which Wells Fargo held as collateral for an automotive loan.

The class was defined as California consumers who had purchased vehicles on credit, whose contracts were assigned to Wells Fargo, repossessed or voluntarily surrendered after default, and who were issued a post repossession notice by Wells Fargo or its subsidiary from November 5, 2004 to December 8, 2008, and were then assessed a deficiency balance.  The class does not include certain accounts that were the subject of bankruptcies or deficiency judgments in court, and it is further limited to borrowers whose accounts were still owned by Wells Fargo as of January 31, 2011.

A deficiency balance is the difference between what was owned on the vehicle and the amount it was sold (usually at wholesale auction) after the repossession.  That amount can be hundreds or thousands of dollars and often comes as a surprise to borrowers who have just lost their car.  The statutory notice, sent before the vehicle is sold at auction, is intended to inform the borrower of just exactly what they have to pay, and to whom, to get the repossessed car back, and avoid the assessment of such a deficiency.

The settlement class includes approximately 15,077 California consumers.

Despite denying any liability, Wells Fargo agreed to extinguish approximately $237,441,000.00 in deficiency balances.  It agreed to notify the three major credit companies that it had zeroed-out the negative all of these debt balances and to recall the accounts from internal collection departments and outside collection agencies.

In addition, Wells Fargo estimated that settlement class members had paid approximately $6,400,000.00 in deficiency balances up to the time of the settlement.  It agreed to pay back 75% of this amount on a claims basis.

The class was represented by Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron, of the law firm Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg in San Francisco; and Mark Chavez and Nance Becker of the law firm Chavez & Gertler in Mill Valley, California.

On September 13, 2011, the Sacramento Superior Court certified a settlement class and issued final approval of the class action settlement in California Community Credit Union v Chapman (Case No. 34-2009-0054626). When California Community Credit Union sued Chapman for a deficiency after sale of his repossessed vehicle, he filed a cross-complaint on behalf of himself and others, alleging that the Credit Union had violated California consumer protection law in the way it had handled the repossession.

The settlement class involved forty-three California borrowers, who bought a car or truck from July 10, 2005 to February 10, 2011 from a dealer on credit, and whose financing was assigned to California Community Credit Union.

Pursuant to the terms of this settlement, California Community Credit Union agreed to extinguish approximately $366,043.00 in debt in the form of outstanding deficiency balances for all affected borrowers.  It agreed not to make any further efforts to collect that money from consumers who are members of the settlement class.

At the time of the settlement, California Community Credit Union had collected about $14,904.00 in deficiency balances from the class members.  This amount was to returned in full, in the form of refund checks.  The checks were mailed to all class members who were entitled to a refund of the amount they paid after repossession.  There was no claims process and the refund checks were automatically sent to those entitled to restitution.

In addition to the monetary relief described above, California Community Credit Union promised to notify the three major credit reporting agencies that there was a zero balance on the subject account.  If you received notice of this class action, you should check your credit rating for this relief.

Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg served as attorneys for the class.

The class action settlement in Morrison, et al v Credit Acceptance Corporation, Case No. C10-00549PJH received final approval from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 12, 2011.  The settlement class of 892 consumers was defined to include California vehicle purchasers whose finance contract was assigned to Credit Acceptance Corporation and were issued a post-repossession notice by Credit Acceptance from December 8, 2005 to January 18, 2010.

Class representatives Andre Morrison, Erlinda del Rosario and Marie del Rosario, on behalf of themselves and the other class members, alleged that the notice failed to comply with California’s Rees-Levering Act and that Credit Acceptance was thus not allowed to collect a deficiency judgment later.  Credit Acceptance denied the allegations, but agreed to settle, with full relief to the class.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Credit Acceptance extinguished approximately $5,096,065 in collective debt in the form of outstanding deficiency balances for all class members.  It agreed not to make any further efforts to collect that money from consumers who are members of the settlement class.  At the time, Credit Acceptance had collected $34,114 from borrowers, and it refunded this amount in full.  It further agreed to send instructions to credit reporting agencies to delete any negative trade line concerning the deficiency charges.  There was no claims process and the refund checks were automatically sent to those entitled to restitution.

The class was represented by Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron, of the law firm Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg in San Francisco; Mark Chavez of the law firm Chavez & Gertler in Mill Valley, California; and Quyen Tu of the Public Law Center in Santa Ana, California.

On June 30, 2008 the Los Angeles Superior Court issued final approval of the consumer class action settlement in Willoughby v DT Credit Corporation (Case No. BC 326262). The settlement class involved California borrowers, who bought a car or truck from July 7, 2001 to August 1, 2006, on credit and whose contract was assigned to DT Credit or a related entity.

The settlement provided substantial and significant benefits to every class member.

Pursuant to terms of this settlement, DT Credit extinguished approximately $77,878,974.33 in debt in the form of outstanding deficiency balances for all 13,342 affected borrowers. It agreed not to make any further efforts to collect that money from consumers who are members of the settlement class.

At the time of the settlement, DT Credit and or its related entities, including companies doing business under the names Ugly Duckling and Drive Time, had collected about $180,033.00 in deficiency balances from the class members.  This amount was returned in full, in the form of refund checks. The checks were mailed to all class members who were entitled to a refund of the amount they paid after repossession. There was no claims process and the refund checks were automatically sent to those entitled to restitution.

Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg partners, Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron, were class counsel, along with Alexander Trueblood of the Trueblood Law Firm.

The Alameda Superior Court issued final approval of the consumer class action settlement in Meza v ACC Consumer Finance (Case No. RG09458893) on August 6, 2010. The checks were mailed to all class members who were entitled to a refund of the amount paid after repossession. There was no claims process and the refund checks were automatically sent.

If you were one of the class members who received a settlement check, be sure to cash the check promptly.

If you did not pay any money toward the deficiency ACC Consumer Finance claimed you owed, but you received class notice in this case, you are still entitled to significant benefits of debt relief. Pursuant to terms of this settlement, ACC Consumer Finance extinguished approximately $14,988,490.27 in debt in the form of outstanding deficiency balances. It cannot take any further actions to collect that debt. Class members should order a credit report sometime between January and March 2011 to make sure the negative trade line concerning the repossession account has been cleared.

Represented by Paul Meza and Jay Pelkey, the class of about 1,623 individuals is defined as all persons who purchased a vehicle, and as part of that transaction entered into an agreement subject to California’s Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act; whose contract was assigned to ACC Consumer Finance; whose vehicle was repossessed or voluntarily surrendered; who were issued an NOI by ACC Consumer Finance during the Class Period (June 22, 2005 to the date of settlement); and against whose account a deficiency balance was assessed in any amount.

Bryan Kemnitzer and Nancy Barron, of the law firm Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP, along with Mark A. Chavez and Nance F. Becker of the law firm Chavez & Gertler, represent the class.

California borrowers received substantial benefits from settlement in the consumer class action entitled McCoy v Alliant Credit Union (Case No. RG09444283), which received final approval from the Alameda County Superior Court on or about July 30, 2010. Once the appeals period expired, refund checks were mailed to those class members who are entitled to their money back pursuant to terms of the settlement. 

 If you were one of about 521 class members who received a settlement check, be sure to cash the check promptly. 

If you did not pay any money toward the deficiency Alliant Credit Union claimed you owed, but you received class notice in this case, you are still entitled to significant benefits from this settlement.  Alliant Credit Union agreed to extinguish approximately $7,370,853.36 in outstanding deficiency balances. It has totally and permanently stopped collection activity on all those accounts. Class members should order a credit report sometime between December 2010 and March 2011 to make sure the negative trade line concerning the repossession account has been cleared.

The class is defined as persons who purchased a vehicle in California; whose loan was assigned to Alliant Credit Union, whose vehicle was repossessed; who received a Notice of Intent from Alliant Credit Union between April 1, 2005 and May 1, 2009; who did not reinstate or redeem the contract; whose vehicle was sold for less than the balance due, resulting in a deficienc; and who did not have a judgment obtained against them prior to April 1, 2009.