Can I sue a dealer for selling me a car with branded title if it's been repossessed?

[Cidarony]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

In October 2007 I bought a "Nissan certified pre-owned" car from a major dealership, complete with warranties. In May 2011 I discovered that the vehicle had a branded (junk) title that was not disclosed to me at purchase. The junk brand was from another state (Illinois) and placed on the vehicle in August 2007 (two months prior to my purchase). In October 2011 I voluntarily surrendered the car. Can I still sue the dealership for misrepresenting the car and not disclosing the branded title even though I no longer have the vehicle?

 

[Zigner]

What are your damages?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

In October 2007 I bought a "Nissan certified pre-owned" car from a major dealership, complete with warranties. In May 2011 I discovered that the vehicle had a branded (junk) title that was not disclosed to me at purchase. The junk brand was from another state (Illinois) and placed on the vehicle in August 2007 (two months prior to my purchase). In October 2011 I voluntarily surrendered the car. Can I still sue the dealership for misrepresenting the car and not disclosing the branded title even though I no longer have the vehicle?

Please answer Zigner's question, I am dying to hear how YOU were damaged.

 

[Cidarony]

Damages

My financial damages amount to $32,570.44 paid towards a car that is virtually worthless because it has a branded title. Additionally, I was repeatedly denied warranty service (that I paid for in the contract) by the dealership but never told why - the GM would always come out and "take care of us", eventually a service rep slipped and told us the car had a branded title.

In Texas it's illegal to sell a car with a branded title without disclosing it to the buyer. Additionally, this car was sold to me as a "Nissan Certified Pre-Owned" - one of the features of that program touts that the vehicle has a clear, non-branded title.

We previously spoke with a consumer protection attorney in our area who said that we had a case (while we still had the car). We didn't pursue it at that time (life got in the way) so now I'm just wondering if I still have a case because I paid over $32,000 on a contract that was for all intents and purposes never valid - but now I no longer have the car. Thoughts?

Oh - and on damages, my credit is now damaged as well.

Additionally, in Texas you can re-coup every dollar you paid towards a vehicle (including maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc) if it was sold to you with a branded title without notice - even if the dealership claims they didn't know. You can collect 3x damages if you can prove that the dealership KNEW that the title was branded before the sale. I've done my research (and talked to an attorney) about whether or not I have damages and what the potential suit is. My only question is whether or not a suit would still be valid if I no longer have the vehicle. Thanks!

 

[Zigner]

Thoughts?

You should have dealt with this while you had the car.

 

[Antigone*]

My financial damages amount to $32,570.44 paid towards a car that is virtually worthless because it has a branded title. Additionally, I was repeatedly denied warranty service (that I paid for in the contract) by the dealership but never told why - the GM would always come out and "take care of us", eventually a service rep slipped and told us the car had a branded title.

In Texas it's illegal to sell a car with a branded title without disclosing it to the buyer. Additionally, this car was sold to me as a "Nissan Certified Pre-Owned" - one of the features of that program touts that the vehicle has a clear, non-branded title.

We previously spoke with a consumer protection attorney in our area who said that we had a case (while we still had the car). We didn't pursue it at that time (life got in the way) so now I'm just wondering if I still have a case because I paid over $32,000 on a contract that was for all intents and purposes never valid - but now I no longer have the car. Thoughts?

The car was repossessed from you, so those damages do not exist. Whatever damages you have suffered are because you did not pay your note.

 

[Zigner]

Let's attack this from another angle. What law are you referring to that requires dealers to notify you of a out-of-state salvage title on the vehicle? (I am asking because I was not able to locate it)

 

[Zigner]

Also you can contact the Texas OAG:

Office of the Attorney General
300 West 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-2100

They should be able to answer your questions.

 

[Cidarony]

Thanks for your help Zinger. I've actually already filed a complaint with the Texas OAG and the Texas DOT. However, they do not typically represent or recover damages for individuals.

The legal issue I'm referencing is based on the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. There is no requirement in this statute that deals with whether the title brand is from another state. There is also no provision in this act that says the dealer must have known about the brand before hand - but if they DID then you can recover 3x damages.

Here is a link to the Texas DPA - BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE**CHAPTER 17. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Here is some of the content that applies to my situation:
Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL. (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code.
(b) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, the term "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
…
5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;
…
(7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
…
(24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed;

 

[Cidarony]

The car was repossessed from you, so those damages do not exist. Whatever damages you have suffered are because you did not pay your note.

So, you are saying that the $32K that I paid doesn't exist? The contract was invalidated because the dealership had no right to sell the car to me without disclosing the title issue. Additionally, the dealership misrepresented the vehicle as being a "Certified Pre-Owned" which it was not as it did not meet the criteria for that program. For a contract to be valid doesn't it have to include TRUTHFUL information about the item being sold? If I was sold an item and made payments towards that item but it's not the item I received, that's not illegal - is that what you are saying? So I could draw up a contract and have you sign it saying that I'm selling you a Mercedes Benz and collect thousands of dollars from you and give you a Pinto - and it's all good? Nothing illegal, no damages?

 

[Zigner]

Dealers in Texas may not know about the branded title from another state. As such, they gave you the information they had. They are not going to get "in trouble" for failing to disclose information they did not have.

 

[swalsh411]

What model Nissan did you buy in 2007 that cost anywhere close to 32k used?

Do you expect a dealer to perform comprehsive time-consuming and expensive research on every used vehicle they sell?

 

[davew128]

What model Nissan did you buy in 2007 that cost anywhere close to 32k used?

Best guess? A 350Z, and a recent one that apparently had been in something causing it to have a salavage title. How a dealer ends up with something like that, I don't know.

Does anyone know Texas law for when a dealer acquires a vehicle titled out of state, what the title requirements become? Obviously it was junked in IL shortly before OP purchased the car at the dealer, I find it difficult to see how the dealer could NOT have know this when THEY acquired the car.

That said, I still see no damages. An economic ripoff perhaps, but no damages.

 

[Cidarony]

Dealers in Texas may not know about the branded title from another state. As such, they gave you the information they had. They are not going to get "in trouble" for failing to disclose information they did not have.

The lawyers that we spoke with said differently - the dealer doesn't have to KNOW about the title brand before he sells the car. Texas is hard core when it comes to consumer rights.

Check out the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act.

The DTPA doesn't require that the dealerhship had to know in advance. The act says that they have to make you "whole" if they knowingly OR unknowingly sold you a vehicle with a branded title. The only distinction made in the act is that if they knew about it beforehand they are responsible for 3x your damages rather than just making you whole again.

The act was setup to protect consumers against dealerships saying "oh what? I had no idea, oops, guess it's your problem now" - the dealership is required to do due diligence to find out about a title brand whether it's from their state or another state. "Title washing" is a known issue in car sales so if a dealer sees something suspicious (like a car that is less than a year old being transferred between 3 states and sold at auction with 6,000 miles on it after being leased to an individual in another state where there was recent flooding for less than 2 months) they should investigate further to protect themselves. The fact that they didn't do so is not the consumers problem - that's why the DTPA exists.

I already know that I HAD a case - three seperate consumer protection attorneys (and one criminal attorney) have confirmed this after hearing ALL of the details. So, i'm not concerned about that. My only question now is if the case is still actionable if I no longer have the property that was used to secure the debt in the contract. My (admitedly ignorant of legal issues) thought is that the contract and tangible item used to secure the debt are two seperate issues and would be addressed seperately - the vehicle being repossessed doesn't make an unlawful contract suddenly legal. The discovery of the branded title rendered the contract invalid - no action on my end would affect the legal status of that contract.

I just thought I'd give this site a try before I pester the lawyer I had previously spoken with about this.

 

[Antigone*]

The lawyers that we spoke with said differently - the dealer doesn't have to KNOW about the title brand before he sells the car. Texas is hard core when it comes to consumer rights.

Check out the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act.

The DTPA doesn't require that the dealerhship had to know in advance. The act says that they have to make you "whole" if they knowingly OR unknowingly sold you a vehicle with a branded title. The only distinction made in the act is that if they knew about it beforehand they are responsible for 3x your damages rather than just making you whole again.

The act was setup to protect consumers against dealerships saying "oh what? I had no idea, oops, guess it's your problem now" - the dealership is required to do due diligence to find out about a title brand whether it's from their state or another state. "Title washing" is a known issue in car sales so if a dealer sees something suspicious (like a car that is less than a year old being transferred between 3 states and sold at auction with 6,000 miles on it after being leased to an individual in another state where there was recent flooding for less than 2 months) they should investigate further to protect themselves. The fact that they didn't do so is not the consumers problem - that's why the DTPA exists.

I already know that I HAD a case - three seperate consumer protection attorneys (and one criminal attorney) have confirmed this after hearing ALL of the details. So, i'm not concerned about that. My only question now is if the case is still actionable if I no longer have the property that was used to secure the debt in the contract. My (admitedly ignorant of legal issues) thought is that the contract and tangible item used to secure the debt are two seperate issues and would be addressed seperately - the vehicle being repossessed doesn't make an unlawful contract suddenly legal. The discovery of the branded title rendered the contract invalid - no action on my end would affect the legal status of that contract.

I just thought I'd give this site a try before I pester the lawyer I had previously spoken with about this.

You have no damages. You no longer own the property. You do not have a case.