Will try to make this brief, but I have several issues here, and unfortunatly attempted to play the "pretend this is not happening , maybe it will go away." I decided to get with the program and investigatit in Feb. and could have had different outcome. My car was repo'd 12-02-02 for nonpayment. I called lending co (LC) later that day, was told I had 10 days to comoe up with $1100 plus to redeem it. Called on 12-12-02,paid $350 online check , and gave check #'s for 2 other payments 5 and 15 days later. Was told they faxed releases to place storig my car the next day. My car had been towed to auction place on Dec 6, could not get it until 12-14-02, the fee for that was $300 plus, in cash. I did not have the money so never got it. The bank apparently thought I did have it since they sent repo men to my house on 4 different times and then to my previous home which finally prompted me to call the bank since the new homeowner was quite upset at being awakened at 2:00 AM and I was upset to have a stranger be told my car was being repo'd and having an outsider be badgered by something not his business. I called the bank on Feb 2,2003 to tell them to desist with the repo men, I would sue for harassment , and name defamation. They always came after midnight, and woke up the household icluding my 4 and 6 yr olds who have had anough trauma in the lives and need no more. I always told the same story, but had to open the garage door for proof. The men always stated they would get it taken care of and have the bank informed. ( which never happened) I also mentioned at this time the 60% rule, stating I was no longer responsible to them for any debt. I spoke with 3 different people , all claimed they did not know of any such law. Bank offered me deal on March 3, of paying $2600 cash to get the car back, only problem was I needed an additioinal $1350 to pay the auction company, so I said no to bank, again repeated 60% rule and again no knowledge of. 3/25 another call from bank, wanting me to arrange to pay defieciency. Again stated I was not responsible because of the 60% rule. This guy got nasty, told me it did not pertain to me because I had breeched my contract. When I mentioned I would speak to my lawyer he got even more obnozious, wanted his name, stated he would call the alwyer himself. I did not give to him ( don;t have one) 3/31 a letter from the bank outlining the defiency. and how they arrived at that amount. DO I send a letter ? I also have several other issues. first off the repeated appearance of repo men for a car the bank already had. when the bank made the 50%offer to me in march their records showed they repoed the car on 2/2/03( when I called them about the repo men). not 12/02/02/, The extended period of time it took them to sell the car. I read something about anything over 60 days being too long, this was over 90 days.Are any of these valid? The initial way I was informed by the bank. It was a form letter , but where the type of vehicle should have been typed in, it merely said "00" the vin number was on the letter, but that is all as far as ID'ing the car. Am I being too petty, or should I pursue further? Does it matter that the original loan was from a local bank which was bought out, and then bought out again? Yhanks, Joan
Joan, Sorry to hear about your repo situation. I hope that you find some answers here on this board. I have a question for you, What do you refer by the 60% rule? Please advice.
The 60% rule is in the IL UCC and states that if 60% of the loan has been met, the creditor is obligated within 5 days of repo to either keep the vehicle which releases debtor from any deficiency, or return vehicle to debtor and sue for remaining debt. Joan
Don't know much about IL. repo laws but according to what you say about the 60% statute you have two things going for you if you want to proceed. First off, the bank or it's successors are not immune (I do not know why they wouldn't be) from the actions of the REPO man after the fact. Secondly, if the 60% statute is true and you had already paid over 60% of the loan, then you might just have a potential extortion (might I said) situation on your hands. As I see it, if the 60% rule is factual, you have two options. Either the car is repossessed and sold and whatever the deficiency is, the bank would come after you. But becasue you were deprived of your right to participate in an auction(I presume it was a dealer only auction) and this means that the sale could possibly have not been in a commercially reasonable manner (one in which the public was not invited, thereby depriving you of the highest price for the car)the amount received at such an auction could possibly be construed PAYMENT IN FULL.That is true in Florida Case Law. So where do you go from here.Small claims court and I would definetely name the Bank and the REPO man as co-defendant's in a small claims action. The basis for the suit would be HARRASSMENT AFTER THE FACT and SALE OF A VEHICLE IN A COMMERCIALLY UN-REASONABLE MANNER. Good luck,RegisP
This isn't a troll, but.. If you couldn't afford it in the first place, why do you want it back? Wouldn't that put you in an even tighter spot?
I don't think at this point her issue is wanting it back, her issue is the deficiency they want, and that under IL law, they can't have.
Here's a link for all the Illinois statutes, including the 60% rule. Good luck http://www.lawdog.com/states/il/repo.htm U.C.C. 9-506 Redemption and 30% Rule Unless otherwise limited by this Act, the parties have the rights and remedies provided in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code with respect to default, disposition, and redemption of collateral. If buyer has paid an amount equal to 60% or more of the deferred payment price at the time of his default under the contract and if the buyer, at request of holder and without legal proceedings, surrenders the goods to the holder in ordinary condition and free from malicious damage, the holder must, within a period of 5 days from date of receipt of goods at place of business, elect either to retain the goods and release buyer from further obligation, or to return goods to buyer at holder's expense and be limited to an action to recover balance of the debt.
Are you still in Illinois? If so, I'd go to district court with this one- small claims limits you to $1,500 and the UCC provides for damages MUCH greater than that.
Bank offered me deal on March 3, of paying $2600 cash to get the car back joane ================= How can they give the car back to you when according to them they don't have it. If they had it why are they sending repo men to take a peek into your garage? The END ************************* LB 59
My website's Illinois page has links at the bottom to Ill Legal Aid & Ill. Auto RISA. http://community-2.webtv.net/Y-Chat/WhyChatsCredit/page17.html In addition, you should consider getting a lawyer on contingency from the NACA site, or referred by Legal Aid to get your refunds + damages. IMO, do it yourself small claims court is foolish when you have such blatant violations, and all your legal costs would be paid by the creditor who messed up.
How can they give the car back to you when according to them they don't have it. If they had it why are they sending repo men to take a peek into your garage? The END ************************* LB 59 Thanks to all for your responses, my main objective is to just get rid of this deficiency! LB, my story is not the clearest since I was trying to just hit the "high points" and not create a novella, and assumed that people reading this would know that by the fact of asking the bank to stop sending repo men to my house I also informed them they had my car since it was repo'ed in Dec. From that date the bank retarted the process of sendig e a letter informing me that they had my car, my options, as well as the affidavit which involves the transfer of titel to them. It was dated Feb 7,2003.So when the bank called me on March 3, they were aware they had the car, but stated they had repoed it on Feb 2. The repo men made appearances from Dec 27 to feb 2 for a total of 5 times. Hope this clears up your apparent animosity. Joan
