ATTENTION SC DEALERS

SC DMV now has the Titling Class for Auto Dealers available online. This class is required in order to apply for your EVR account. You will have to have an EVR account in order to issue the new traceable temp tags. The new temp tag system goes into effect May 15. You have the option of issuing the current paper temp tags until November 10, but make sure you sign up well in advance of November 10 since it may take you several weeks to get an account. The vendor we recommend is CVR.
This link will take you to the online class:
http://scdmvonline.com/Business-Customers/Dealers/Titling-Class-for-Auto-Dealers

Kat Messenger
Carolina Dealer Training

This email message and any attachments contain information which may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication, including attachments. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The CARLAWYER©

By Thomas B. Hudson and Nicole F. Munro

Happy New Year! Here’s our monthly article on legal developments in the auto sales, finance and leasing world. This month, the action involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission. As usual, this month’s article features our “Case of the Month.”

Note that this column does not offer legal advice. Always check with your lawyer to learn how what we report might apply to you, or if you have questions.

This Month’s CARLAWYER© Compliance Tip

Do you belong to a state dealer association? Does that dealer association have a code of conduct or code of ethics, and do you proudly display a copy of it on your dealership’s wall, out in the showroom where your customers can see it? If so, you might want to step over to the wall and read it. That statement of how your dealership does business can come back to haunt you if you are only “talking the talk,” but not “walking the walk.” Take a hard look at it and contemplate on how well your dealership is keeping its promises.

Federal Developments

A New Sheriff is in Town. On December 6, the U.S. Senate, in a 50-49 party-line vote, confirmed Kathy Kraninger as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, replacing acting director Mick Mulvaney. Kraninger previously worked as an associate director in the Office of Management and Budget. She will serve for a 5-year term.

What’s in a Name? Mick Mulvaney, who served as acting CFPB Director before Kraninger’s nomination and confirmation, had decreed a name change for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – he preferred the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,” the name used in the Dodd-Frank Act. One of Kraninger’s first acts at the Bureau was to drop the name change initiative, so we’re back to calling the Bureau the CFPB again.

Were You Thinking the CFPB Had Quit Enforcing the Credit Laws? Think again. On December 6, the CFPB announced a settlement with State Farm Bank, FSB, for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Regulation V, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 in connection with its credit card lending and auto refinance loans. Specifically, the CFPB alleged that State Farm obtained consumer reports without a permissible purpose, including obtaining consumer reports for the wrong consumer, not the consumer who had applied for a credit product; furnished to credit reporting agencies information about consumers’ credit that the bank knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate, including furnishing account information for the wrong consumer, reporting current accounts as delinquent, and reporting inaccurate payment histories and past-due amounts; failed to promptly update and correct information furnished to CRAs; furnished information to CRAs without providing notice that the information was disputed by the consumer; and failed to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information provided to CRAs. The consent order requires State Farm to implement and maintain policies and procedures to address the alleged violations and to develop a compliance plan designed to ensure that its consumer credit reporting activities comply with federal law.

Wave That Red Flag! On December 4, the FTC, as part of its periodic review of current rules and guides, issued a request for comment on its Red Flags Rule, which requires financial institutions and some creditors to implement a written identity theft prevention program designed to detect the “red flags” of identity theft in their day-to-day operations, take steps to prevent identity theft, and mitigate its damage. Comments are due by February 11, 2019.

Report Card Time. On December 4, the CFPB issued its annual Fair Lending Report to Congress highlighting the CFPB’s fair lending activities in 2017. The report addresses, among other things, (1) the CFPB’s oversight and enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; (2) the CFPB’s coordination with other federal and state agencies to promote enforcement of federal fair lending laws; and (3) the CFPB’s fair lending education initiatives.

Case of the Month

Arbitration Agreement in Retail Installment Contract Covered Car Purchasers’ Defamation Claim Against Dealership Arising from Salesman’s Statements: After a dealership repossessed a car by mistake, the car owners sued the dealership for claims arising from the repossession and included a defamation claim based on the conduct of a dealership salesman. The car owners alleged that the salesman, who lived in the same condominium complex as the owners and many of their business customers, told other members of the condominium community that the vehicle was repossessed because the owners were in financial difficulty. The owners asserted that the dealership was vicariously liable for damages caused by the salesman’s defamatory statements. The RIC contained an arbitration clause that covered, among other things, any claim or dispute in tort that “arises out of or relates to” the credit application, purchase, or condition of the vehicle. The dealership moved to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that the defamation claim was not covered by the arbitration clause, but the state appellate court reversed and remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration of the defamation claim. The appellate court noted that the arbitration language expressly contemplated tort actions. The appellate court also determined that the addition of the words “relates to” broadened the scope of the arbitration provision to include all claims, including tort claims, having a “significant relationship” to the contract. The appellate court found that there was a significant relationship between the owners’ tort claim and the contract. The owners alleged that the defamation was based on statements allegedly made by the salesman within the scope of his employment. The appellate court found that those statements related to the owners’ purchase of the vehicle and their ability to afford it, which in turn related to the credit application and the RIC that controlled the purchase. See Countyline Auto Center, Inc. v. Kulinsky, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 16684 (Fla. App. November 21, 2018).

So, there’s this month’s roundup! Stay legal, and we’ll see you next month.


Tom (thudson) is Of Counsel and Nikki (nmunro) is a Partner in the law firm of Hudson Cook, LLP. Tom has written several books and is the publisher of Spot Delivery®, a monthly legal newsletter for auto dealers. He is the CEO of CounselorLibrary.com, LLC and the Senior Editor of CounselorLibrary.com’s CARLAW®, a monthly report of legal developments for the auto finance and leasing industry.Nikki is Editor in Chief of CARLAW®, a contributing author to the F&I Legal Desk Book and frequently writes for Spot Delivery®. For information, visit www.counselorlibrary.com. © CounselorLibrary.com 2019, all rights reserved. Single publication rights only, to the Association. (1/19). HC 4815-6560-3460.

Kat Messenger
Carolina Dealer Training

This email message and any attachments contain information which may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication, including attachments. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

NC DEALERS: NEW DMV INTERPRETATION OF THE INSPECTION LAW

DMV has recently taken a fresh look at the inspection law and how it applies to wholesale transactions. This is their current interpretation:

If a dealer buys a car from another licensed NC dealer, and that dealer has had the vehicle inspected within the past 12 months, the dealer buying it does not have to have it inspected. He or she should get a copy of the inspection receipt from the selling dealer. When that inspection is 12 months old, the buying dealer will have to have it inspected.

If the selling dealer had the vehicle inspected in a safety only county and the buying dealer is in an emissions county, the buying dealer will have to have the vehicle inspected again.

The CARLAWYER© May 18

By Thomas B. Hudson and Nicole F. Munro

Here’s our monthly article on legal developments in the auto sales, finance and lease world. This month, the action involves the Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Senate and the New York Office of the Attorney General. As usual, this month’s article features our “Case of the Month.”

Note that this column does not offer legal advice. Always check with your lawyer to learn how what we report might apply to you, or if you have questions.

This Month’s CARLAWYER©Compliance Tip

If you offer a warranty with the cars you sell, pay close attention to the FTC warning on warranties described immediately below. If your warranty contains provisions like the ones the FTC objects to, it’s time to sit down with your lawyer for a rewrite.

Federal Developments

Warning to Warrantors. On April 10, the FTC announced that its staff sent warning letters to six major companies that market and sell cars, cellular devices, and video gaming systems in the United States. The letters reportedly warn that FTC staff has concerns about the companies’ statements requiring consumers to use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties intact. Unless warrantors provide the parts or services for free or receive a waiver from the FTC, such statements are generally prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Similarly, those statements may be deceptive under the FTC Act. Here are some examples of provisions the FTC staff questioned: (1) The use of [company name] parts is required to keep your … manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact; (2) This warranty shall not apply if this product … is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name]; and (3) This warranty does not apply if this product … has had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed. The FTC staff requested that each company review promotional and warranty materials to ensure the materials do not state or imply that warranty coverage is conditioned on the use of specific parts or services. In addition, the FTC staff requested each company to revise its practices to comply with the law. The letters state that FTC staff will review the companies’ websites after 30 days and that failure to correct any potential violations may result in law enforcement action. The press release about the action can be found at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage.

Senate Rejects “Guidance.” On April 18, the U.S. Senate passed a joint resolution using its powers under the Congressional Review Act to vacate the Bureau’s March 2013 guidance for indirect auto lenders on compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B. The joint resolution passed with a 51-47 vote. In December 2017, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the CFPB’s guidance was, at the time of its issuance, a rule subject to the Congressional Review Act. The joint resolution now heads to the House for a vote, where it is expected to pass. The president is also expected to sign the joint resolution.

Did You Say a Billion Dollar Fine? On April 20, the Bureau announced a settlement with Wells Fargo, N.A. in a coordinated action with the OCC. The Bureau alleged that Wells Fargo’s policies and practices regarding force-placed collateral protection insurance on vehicles that are collateral for loans (probably retail installment contracts) it originated or acquired were unfair under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). In addition, the Bureau alleged that certain fees Wells Fargo charged mortgage loan borrowers for extensions on interest rate locks were unfair under the CFPA. Specifically, Wells Fargo allegedly force-placed collateral protection insurance on consumers’ vehicles that were already covered by insurance policies voluntarily obtained by the consumers. In instances where the company appropriately force-placed insurance on consumers’ vehicles, the company improperly maintained the force-placed insurance policies on the consumers’ accounts even after the consumers had obtained adequate insurance on their vehicles and provided proof of insurance. Wells Fargo also allegedly failed to provide sufficient refunds of fees associated with the improper forced-placement of collateral protection insurance. The consent order requires the company to undertake certain activities related to its risk and compliance management, and the company has begun voluntarily providing remediation to consumers to address deficiencies cited in the consent order. The Bureau assessed a $1 billion penalty against Wells Fargo and credited the $500 million penalty collected by the OCC toward the satisfaction of its fine. Information about the action can be found at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/enforcement/actions/wells-fargo-bank-na-2018/.
So, there’s this month’s report. See you next month!

Case of the Month

Dealership’s Fraudulent Misrepresentations Regarding Condition of Used Vehicle Invalidated Implied Warranty Disclaimer: During a test drive of a truck with a salvage title, the potential buyer noticed that the check-engine light was on and the truck smoked. The salesperson explained that the truck smoked because it was a diesel and that the check-engine light was due to a faulty oxygen sensor that would be easy to fix.

The buyer bought the truck “as is” and received a third-party vehicle protection plan at no cost. Within days of purchase, the truck lacked power and continued to smoke. The dealership refused to diagnose or repair the truck. The buyer had the truck inspected and was advised that the engine needed replacing.

The buyer sued the dealership, alleging fraud and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and seeking attorneys’ fees under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted judgment for the buyer, awarding her $14,366 in damages based on the price she paid for the truck and the cost of the inspection, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The dealership appealed.

The appellate court affirmed, as did the Supreme Court of Minnesota in this decision. The dealership argued that the “as is” disclaimer barred the buyer’s claim. The state high court disagreed, finding that, under Minnesota law, a warranty disclaimer is effective “unless the circumstances indicate otherwise.” The high court concluded “that [the dealership’s] fraudulent statements about the fitness of the truck for the purpose for which a truck is purchased are a circumstance that make the ‘as is’ disclaimers of implied warranties in the purchase documents ineffective.” See Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC, 2018 Minn. LEXIS 111 (Minn. March 21, 2018).

So, there’s this month’s roundup! Stay legal, and we’ll see you next month.


Tom (thudson) is Of Counsel and Nikki (nmunro) is a Partner in the law firm of Hudson Cook, LLP. Tom has written several books and is the publisher of Spot Delivery®, a monthly legal newsletter for auto dealers. He is the CEO of CounselorLibrary.com, LLC and the Senior Editor of CounselorLibrary.com’s CARLAW®, a monthly report of legal developments for the auto finance and leasing industry.Nikki is Editor in Chief of CARLAW®, a contributing author to the F&I Legal Desk Book and frequently writes for Spot Delivery®. For information, visit www.counselorlibrary.com. © CounselorLibrary.com 2018, all rights reserved. Single publication rights only, to the Association. (5/18). HC/4822-8265-6869v1.

The CARLAWYER©02/18

By Thomas B. Hudson and Nicole F. Munro

Here’s our monthly article on legal developments in the auto sales, finance and lease world. This month, we’re reporting on activities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the courts. As usual, this month’s article features our “Case of the Month.”

Note that this column does not offer legal advice. Always check with your lawyer to learn how what we report might apply to you, or if you have questions.

This Month’s CARLAWYER©Compliance Tip

Advertising and selling cars online has become commonplace. It is also common that sometimes the buyers and dealers in these online transactions are located in different states. What is less common is that a dealer, before undertaking these sales, has had the advertising and sales process reviewed by counsel. The “Case of the Month,” below, involves a Tennessee dealer who was sued in Alabama, after an Alabama buyer bought a car from the Tennessee seller. The dealer had the Alabama lawsuit dismissed, but gave the buyers permission to transfer the case to the appropriate jurisdiction. The case illustrates the perils of online transactions. Have you had your online advertising and sales processes reviewed by counsel?

Federal Developments

Struggle for Control of the CFPB. On January 10, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English’s request for a preliminary injunction to block President Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as acting CFPB director. The court ruled that English is not likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that, by operation of the Dodd-Frank Act, she is the rightful acting CFPB director. English was also unable to show that a denial of the injunction would cause her or the agency to suffer irreparable harm.

As background: On November 24, 2017, Richard Cordray appointed English, his chief of staff, as deputy director and then resigned. Pursuant to a section of the Dodd-Frank Act that says the deputy director serves as the acting director when the director is unavailable, English claimed the title of acting director upon Cordray’s resignation. A few hours later, President Trump – using his authority under the Federal Vacancies Act to fill vacant positions that require Senate confirmation with another appointee who has already been confirmed by the Senate for another position – appointed Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, as the CFPB’s acting director until a permanent director is confirmed by the Senate, setting up a conflict with Cordray’s appointee.

English sued Mulvaney and the president, asking the court to restrain Mulvaney from heading the CFPB until a permanent director can be nominated and confirmed. In late November, the judge denied English’s initial request for a temporary restraining order.

Kiss the Payday Rule Goodbye? On January 16, 2018, the CFPB issued the following statement on its Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans final rule (“Payday Rule”): “January 16, 2018, is the effective date of the [Payday Rule]. The Bureau intends to engage in a rulemaking process so that the Bureau may reconsider the Payday Rule. Although most provisions of the Payday Rule do not require compliance until August 19, 2019, the effective date marks codification of the Payday Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations. [The] effective date also establishes April 16, 2018, as the deadline to submit an application for preliminary approval to become a registered information system (“RIS”) under the Payday Rule. However, the Bureau may waive this deadline pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1041.11(c)(3)(iii). Recognizing that this preliminary application deadline might cause some entities to engage in work in preparing an application to become a RIS, the Bureau will entertain waiver requests from any potential applicant.”

A New Boss, With New Marching Orders. On January 23, 2018, the CFPB’s Acting Director Mulvaney wrote a memo to staff discussing how, under new leadership, the CFPB is shifting its governing philosophy in regard to carrying out its mandate under the Dodd-Frank Act. While Mulvaney affirmed the need to protect consumers and stated that the CFPB will enforce consumer financial protection laws vigorously, he noted that the CFPB will no longer “push the envelope” of the law in order to “send a message” to regulated entities. Mulvaney rejected his predecessor’s “good guy” versus “bad guy” language and promised to execute the CFPB’s mandate “with humility and prudence.”

Mulvaney indicated that the CFPB will be conducting a review of all activities in which it is engaged. More specifically, Mulvaney stated that the CFPB will be: (1) bringing enforcement actions where “quantifiable and unavoidable harm to the consumer” exists; (2) focusing on formal rulemaking instead of “regulation by enforcement;” and (3) prioritizing areas of focus based on consumer complaints (noting, specifically, that nearly a third of CY 2016 complaints related to debt collection, compared to 0.9% for prepaid cards and 2% for payday lending).

Finally, Mulvaney stated that the CFPB will engage in quantitative analysis to “consider the potential costs and benefits to consumers and covered persons” when determining whether to intervene in given situations.

Information, Please. On January 24, 2018, the CFPB issued a “Request for Information,” seeking feedback on all aspects of the CFPB’s civil investigative demand process to determine if any changes are necessary. The CFPB issues CIDs to entities and persons whom the CFPB has reason to believe have information relevant to a violation of the laws the CFPB enforces.

Recipients of a CID are required to produce the requested information to the Bureau, which uses that information to further its investigations of potential violations of federal consumer financial laws. Through the RFI, the CFPB is seeking information on how processes related to CIDs may be updated, streamlined, or revised to better achieve the CFPB’s statutory and regulatory objectives, while minimizing burdens on recipients, and how to align the CFPB’s CID processes with those of other agencies.

The CFPB believes that entities that have received one or more CID, lawyers who represent these entities, and members of the public are likely to have useful information and perspectives that will help inform the CFPB’s review of its CID processes. Comments are due by March 27, 2018.

The RFI on CIDs comes on the heels of the CFPB’s January 17, 2018, announcement that it is issuing a call for evidence to ensure the CFPB is fulfilling its proper and appropriate functions to best protect consumers. The CFPB will be publishing in the Federal Register a series of similar RFIs, seeking comment on enforcement, supervision, rulemaking, market monitoring, and education activities. These RFIs will provide an opportunity for the public to submit feedback and suggest ways to improve outcomes for both consumers and covered entities.

Case of the Month

This month’s case involves a dealer’s Internet advertising and sales activities. Here’s what happened.

Ashley and Derek Hand sued Wholesale Auto Shop, LLC, a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee, for selling them a Jeep Wrangler with an odometer reading of 66,692 but with actual mileage of 252,603 miles. The Hands claimed that Wholesale Auto violated, among other laws, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

After Wholesale Auto failed to answer the complaint, the Hands moved for a default judgment. The federal trial court asked the Hands to submit a supplemental brief addressing the issue of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Wholesale Auto. After the Hands submitted the brief, the court denied the Hands’ motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, but granted them leave to move to transfer the case to an appropriate jurisdiction.

Alabama’s long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction if constitutionally permissible, and the U.S. Constitution requires a defendant to have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state in order to satisfy due process. The court found that Wholesale Auto lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Alabama. The Hands viewed Wholesale Auto’s advertisement for the Jeep on autotrader.com, the parties communicated by phone between Alabama and Tennessee after the Hands contacted Wholesale Auto about the Jeep, and the Hands traveled to Tennessee to buy the vehicle.

The court concluded that the fact that Wholesale Auto called the Hands twice in Alabama and allegedly made fraudulent statements during those calls was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Wholesale Auto because the Hands initiated the contact, consummated the transaction in Tennessee, and were only injured in Alabama by bringing the car to that state.

Hand v. Wholesale Auto Shop, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2138 (N.D. Ala. January 5, 2018)

So, there’s this month’s roundup! Stay legal, and we’ll see you next month.


Tom (thudson) is Of Counsel and Nikki (nmunro) is a Partner in the law firm of Hudson Cook, LLP. Tom has written several books and is the publisher of Spot Delivery®, a monthly legal newsletter for auto dealers. He is the CEO of CounselorLibrary.com, LLC and the Editor in Chief of CARLAW®, a monthly report of legal developments for the auto finance and leasing industry. Nikki is a contributing author to the F&I Legal Desk Book and frequently writes for Spot Delivery®. For information, visit www.counselorlibrary.com. © CounselorLibrary.com 2018, all rights reserved. Single publication rights only, to the Association. (2/18). HC/4816-3298-5692v1.