John Gear Law Office & Salem Consumer Law    503-569-7777
  • Welcome
  • Services Offered
  • Finding My Office
  • Law for Real People blog
  • Useful links

 Don't get strangled by a dealer's yo-yo! Oregon law protects you if your dealer says you must return the car because your loan wasn't approved

1/28/2016

10 Comments

 
 In Oregon, it is legal for a dealer to sell you a car with the financing not approved.

So there is often language in used-car sale contracts that says that you agree to bring the car back if the dealer cannot find a lender who will agree buy the loan that the dealer negotiated with you.

This is where the bad ones cheat you -- you drive off the lot and then you sink money into the car, and then they call you and tell you that your financing failed, and you have to bring the car back. Often, the dealer CAN find financing on the terms negotiated, but they won't end up making as much money as they hoped to -- so they decide to try the yo-yo scam on you (or "bushing").

(This is one reason not to put much money into a used car until the deal is "final final" -- one way dealers abuse consumers is that they will not give you any credit for the new accessories you put onto the car, and lots of times they have already sold your trade in. It's illegal, but it happens all the time. It makes you very vulnerable.)

Under Oregon law, if the dealer calls you and says your financing failed, they have to tell you that you have a right to get everything you put down on the car back (cash and trade-in), and when you go to take their car back, they have to actually have the keys to your trade-in and any cash you gave them sitting right on the table so that you can walk away completely and not do another deal with them.

NEVER agree to pay more than you already negotiated for a car or to accept a higher interest rate. The dealer can always carry your loan without selling it to a financing company -- and it's always better to get out of a deal where the financing fails than to make it worse by agreeing to pay more. (If your credit is so poor that no lender will take the original deal, how does it get better if you agree to pay more?) 

A dealer who tries to talk you into a different car or for paying more than you already agreed to pay is a cheat.
And don't think for a second you can outsmart a cheat at their own game. Once they are out to cheat you, your best bet is get away from them. If you buy a used car on contingent financing and then you get a call or text saying that you have to bring the car back:
  1. Get all your paperwork about the original deal and financing out of the car and the glovebox!  Do NOT give the original deal and financing paper to the dealer! You may need it later. Make sure the dealer can't destroy the evidence of the deal or make it hard for you to get!

  2. Have a friend drive a second car when you go to the dealer when you return their car, so that you have a ride home - DON'T let the dealer trap you at their dealership without a way home. If you can't find a friend to take you, bring cab fare.

  3. DON'T bring your kids and DON'T go just before work so that you are pressured to finish quickly or agree with the dealer to new terms!

  4. Take a sharp adult friend or family member with you to be a witness. Don't let the dealer separate you or isolate you
  5. Call a consumer attorney experienced in dealing with autofraud if the dealer fails to comply with any part of the law quoted below.
OAR 137-020-0020 (3)(z):

(z) Anti-Bushing Rule - In any transaction in which the dealer or broker has spot delivered a vehicle to a consumer and the consumer does not qualify for the terms offered, the dealer or broker shall, prior to offering, negotiating or entering into new terms for the purchase or lease of a vehicle:


(A) Inform the consumer that the consumer is entitled to have all items of value received from the consumer as part of the transaction, including any trade-in and down payment, returned to the consumer;
(B) If the consumer is physically present when the dealer or broker informs the consumer that the consumer does not qualify for the terms offered, return all items of value received from the consumer as part of the transaction; and

(C) If the dealer or broker informs a consumer by telephone or other means, without the consumer present, that the consumer did not qualify for the terms offered, clearly disclose the consumer's right to receive the immediate return of all items of value given by the consumer as part of the transaction when the consumer returns the spot delivered vehicle. Simply informing a consumer of the consumer's right to get back his/her down payment and trade-in and having the consumer sign a waiver or rescission form, without the actual ability for the consumer to have his/her down payment back and take possession of his/her trade-in, does not comply with ORS 646.877 . The consumer's down payment and trade-in must be actually available to the consumer should the consumer wish to rescind the transaction and not enter into a new transaction. If a consumer has paid a down payment with a check, the dealer is not required to refund the down payment until the consumer's check has cleared.

OFFICIAL COMMENTARY: This rule clarifies the Oregon "Anti-bushing" statute, ORS 646.877 , so that dealers and brokers clearly understand its requirements. This statute gives both dealers and consumers specific rights when it is necessary to unwind a spot delivery transaction. While the statute clearly states "the seller shall return to the buyer all items of value received from the buyer as part of the transaction," many dealers and brokers do not actually give or even offer the consumer the down payment and trade-in back before the dealer or broker tries to get the consumer to sign a new contract. Many dealers and brokers do not even have the down payment or trade-in readily available when they inform the consumer that the consumer needs to enter into a new contract. Simply offering to return the items of value and having a consumer agree to rescind the prior deal is not in compliance with the statute. The consumer has an absolute right to walk away from the deal if the original offer is not going to be honored. Without having actual ability to take possession of the trade-in and down payment, the seller has the ability to pressure a consumer into entering into a less favorable contract and has an uneven bargaining position. Having a refund check presently available and giving the consumer his/her keys with the trade-in vehicle immediately available is necessary for compliance.

manuel_avoids_car-buying-trouble.pdf
File Size: 3068 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

10 Comments

IRS phone scam -- the real IRS NEVER CALLS! Do NOT return these calls!

1/28/2016

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

New Resource for Identify Theft Problems, English & Spanish

1/28/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Federal Trade Commission just announced significant enhancements to IdentityTheft.gov – the federal government’s free, one-stop resource to report identity theft and recover from it.

New features on the site allow victims to:

·         Get a personal recovery plan that walks them through each step

·         Update their personal plan and track their progress

·         Print pre-filled letters & forms to send to credit bureaus, businesses, and debt collectors

 
No matter what the specific identity theft situation is, IdentityTheft.gov can help.
And, the entire site is available in Spanish at RobodeIdentidad.gov.
 
To help make sure that identity theft victims know about this free resource, you can:
 
·         Link to IdentityTheft.gov and RobodeIdentidad.gov from your website.

·         Update your identity theft print publications to include IdentityTheft.gov and RobdeIdentidad.gov.

·         Send a press release to your media networks about IdentityTheft.gov.

·         Distribute free identity theft materials in English and Spanish at your events. Order them free here.

·         Share on social media IdentityTheft.gov as the one-stop resource for victims of identity theft

·         Talk about IdentityTheft.gov in your presentations and seminars about identity theft.

0 Comments

Good NPR Exposé on States Allowing Workers Comp Opt-Out

1/21/2016

0 Comments

 
Insult To Injury: America's Vanishing Worker Protections

Federal Workplace Law Fails To Protect Employees Left Out Of Workers' Comp
0 Comments

Rubber Stamp Justice in the Mad Mad Mad Mad World of Debt Collection

1/21/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Every year, several hundred thousand people across the United States are sued by companies they have never done business with and may never have heard of. These firms are called debt buyers and although they have never loaned anyone a penny, millions of Americans owe them money. Debt buyers purchase vast portfolios of bad debts—mostly delinquent credit cards—from lenders who have written them off as a loss. They pay just pennies on the dollar but can go after alleged debtors for the full face value of every debt plus interest at rates that routinely exceed 25 percent.

Debt buyers also rely on tax-funded state institutions—namely the court system—to secure much of their income. Leading debt buyers rank among the heaviest individual users of state court systems across the US, and various legal actions and research, including that of Human Rights Watch, have identified repeated patterns of error and lack of legal compliance in their lawsuits. These problems are often discovered long after the debt buyers have already won court judgments against alleged debtors, a situation that arises because of the inability of alleged debtors to mount an effective defense even when they are on the right side of the law. Debt buyer lawsuits typically play out before the courts with a stark inequality of arms, pitting unrepresented defendants against seasoned collections attorneys.

The amount at issue in any one debt buyer lawsuit rarely exceeds a few thousand dollars, but the stakes are often higher than they seem. Many of the defendants in these cases are poor or living at the margins of poverty and this is often the reason they fell into debt in the first place. For them, the impact of an adverse judgment can be devastating. Human Rights Watch interviewed alleged debtors in court who broke down in tears while trying to explain how the judgments debt buyers had won against them would impact their ability to pay bills and support their children. . . .

Read the whole report here


0 Comments

For those facing the lump-sum vs monthly pension question

1/12/2016

0 Comments

 
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a pretty fair new booklet that's easy to read and understand; it can't give you the answers for your particular situation, but it can help you know the right questions you need answers to before you decide how to sign up for your pension.
0 Comments

The Bias Against Real People in Arbitration 

1/5/2016

0 Comments

 
A heavy-hitter SF Bay-area attorney who works more for the defense than the plaintiffs' side notes the pervasive bias for the defendants and the cost to the civil justice system of the US Supreme Court's decision to abandon the Constitution and the 7th Amendment, which allows defendants to privatize and starve the justice system through the use of private forced arbitration.

Forced arbitration of consumer and employment cases robs the system of legitimacy and promotes abuses by corporate defendants, who are encouraged by being allowed to operate under a shield of pre-emptive cover for wrongdoing. And it destroys the foundation of the common law, the basis for the American civil justice.

Are you seeing a significant drop in the amount of jury trial work that's coming your way at the firm? No. We're not seeing a slowdown. We're recognizing a long, 10-year problem of a lack of civil jury trials in anything but product liability and personal injury cases. And that's not a slowdown. That's just the way it's been for a while.

How much of that do you attribute to the move towards more arbitration in the sorts of cases that used to produce civil jury trials? I think it's huge. I think the big cases that used to be tried to a jury are now going to arbitration because of the contractual terms usually imposed by one big party on the other side—whether it's an employment agreement, a merger agreement or certainly a consumer agreement. The defendants are successful at pushing cases to arbitration which is a forum that's favorable to defendants.

Do you do much arbitration yourself? Yes.

And how do you like it? I hate it. It lacks the formality of the court system and it lacks review of the court system. There's no discipline in it.

What about that lack of formality benefits defendants? You can be a conference room lawyer and make your way through an arbitration. You know you don't have to worry about punitive damages in virtually all arbitrations. You don't have to worry about the rules of evidence. And there are often limits on discovery that make it better for defendants than it is for plaintiffs. It's trial for the one percenters is the way that I think about it.

Just because of the odds being in the defense's favor? No. [It's because] of arbitrators. Not all [of them]. Some arbitrators are wonderful and as former judges still try to act like judges. But quite often they act like people who are there to kind of keep everybody happy. . . .

What might we be losing in terms of lawyering skills? It's not just lawyering skills. What we lose is law. When people go to trial and those trials are appealed and appellate courts write opinions, law develops and law changes and law evolves. When all of that happens in an arbitration context, nothing happens. The other things that obviously atrophy are jury trial skills. Judges don't get enough of them, so judges don't like civil jury trials—some judges, not all. The lawyers don't get enough of them, so they're scared of civil jury trials. Right now my understanding is that 1.2 percent of all federal civil filings end up in a jury trial. That means the jury trial is almost extinct and in England they are extinct.

Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202745461876/A-Litigators-Take-on-Arbitration-and-the-Demise-of-the-Jury-Trial#ixzz3wPQRz6kQ
0 Comments

While doing your new year's planning, here's a worthy group

1/4/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Author

    John Gear Law Office -
    Since 2010, a values-based Oregon law practice serving Oregon consumers, elders, employees, and nonprofits.

    Categories

    All
    Advertising
    All
    Arbitration
    Autofraud
    Bankruptcy
    Borrowing
    Class Actions
    Consumer Law
    Consumer Protection
    Consumer Protection Class Actions
    Credit
    Credit Reports
    Debt
    Debt Collection
    Elder Abuse
    Elders
    Employment
    End Of Life
    Fairness
    Fdcpa
    Foreclosures
    Fundraising
    Funeral
    Games Car Dealers Play
    Garnishments
    Great Stuff
    Health Care/Insurance
    Identity Theft
    I (heart) Liz Warren
    Insurance
    Lawyer Referral Service
    Legal Resources
    Lemon Law
    Life Planning
    Long-term Care Facilities
    Media
    Military
    Military Assistance Panel
    Modifications
    Mortgages
    N.A.O.
    Nonprofits
    Oregonadminrules
    OregonLaws.org
    Plain English
    Preparing For Departure
    Privacy
    Pro Bono
    Regulation
    Resources
    Right To Repair
    Safety
    Scam
    Scams
    Strategic Planning
    Student Loans
    Tort Reform
    Training
    Used Cars
    Veterans
    Wage Garnishment
    Wage Theft
    Warnings
    Warranties
    Watchdogs
    Workplace

    Archives

    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011

    RSS Feed

Picture

LAWYERLY FINE PRINT:

John Gear Law Office LLC and Salem Consumer Law.  John Gear Law Office is in Suite 208B of the Security Building in downtown Salem at 161 High St. SE, across from the Elsinore Theater, a half-block south of Marion County Courthouse, just south of State Street. There is abundant, free 3-hour on-street parking throughout downtown Salem, and three multi-story parking ramps that offer free customer parking in downtown Salem too.

Our attorneys are only licensed to practice law in Oregon. This site may be considered advertising under Oregon State Bar rules. There is no legal advice on this site so you should not interpret anything you read here as intended for your particular situation. Besides, we are not representing you and we are not your attorneys unless you have hired us by entering into a representation agreement with me. While we do want you to consider us when you seek an attorney, you should not hire any attorney based on brochures, websites, advertising, or other promotional materials.  All original content on this site is Copyright John Gear, 2010-2022.

Photos used under Creative Commons from Tony Webster, brand0con, eirikso, Fibonacci Blue, Jirka Matousek, Rd. Vortex, rcbrazier - Brazier Creative, cogdogblog, marfis75, marcoverch, GWP Photography, byzantiumbooks, Mic V., notacrime, emrank, Family Art Studio, dotpolka, respres, Mark Cummins, a little tune, Insulinde, Bill Wards Brickpile, Roger Chang, AnthonyMendezVO, jonrawlinson, Andres Rueda, Franco Folini, inman news, Pictures by Ann, ph-stop, crabchick, Jilligan86, Elvert Barnes, p.Gordon, CarbonNYC, Digital Sextant, darkpatator, Neil T, rictic, Mr. Mystery, SeanC90, richardmasoner, www.metaphoricalplatypus.com, lindsayloveshermac, Santacreu, =Nahemoth=, ReinventedWheel, LadyDragonflyCC - On Vacation, See you all soon!, Mr. T in DC, Nisha A, markcbrennan, Celestine Chua, Furryscaly, smkybear, CarbonNYC, radioedit, Don Hankins, Henrik Hovhannisyan, CoreBurn, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, David Masters, SeeMidTN.com (aka Brent), SoulRider.222, amboo who?, robwest, Rob Ellis', floeschie, Key Foster, TechCocktail, That Other Paper, marcoverch, oskay, Muffet, rodaniel, Alan Cleaver, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, Horia Varlan, xJasonRogersx, billaday, BasicGov, One Way Stock, mikebaird, Nevado, shalf