Posted on 08/01/2025 12:34:17 PM PDT by ShadowAce
A Kia dealership that got on the wrong side of an Ohio woman has approached the courts to regain its name after she snatched it. The dispute started with a repossessed car.
The dealership, formerly known as “Taylor Kia of Lima,” took back Tiah McCreary’s car in just one month. The dealer sold her a used Kia K5, but claimed in court documents that it was later determined that the McCreary did not provide sufficient information for loan approval.
McCreary found the perfect chance to pull off the automobile revenge of the century while considering her legal options. She discovered that the dealer had not renewed its company name with the Ohio Secretary of State and swooped in by registering it in her name. McCreary then slammed the dealer with a cease-and-desist letter asking them to stop trading with the name.
Faced with an impending identity crisis, the dealer enlisted the help of the courts to wrestle back the name. It argued that an arbitration clause in the purchase contract rendered McCreary’s demand invalid, to which a judge agreed. However, the Third District appeals court had a different view; the arbitration clause only applied to the repossession, and not the tussle over the “Taylor Kia of Lima” moniker.
According to the ruling, the “claim is a separate matter that could be pursued independently of the other claims in the complaint that address the consumer transaction at issue. Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration.”
The parties are back in the lower courts for another round of legal sparring.
They tried that with one of my friends.
He told them to “F-— off” and call his lawyer if they had an issue.
It should be illegal to sell a car under pre-approval conditions.
It is hilarious she was able to take their name.
Freegards BenL!
So, if I understand correctly, the dealership is backing out of the financing and repossessed the car. The obvious question is, why not ask her for the additional information? But you are saying that dealer is just using some legalese for a legal way out of selling the car to her.
I am no lowyer though I am lowdown, but I will guess and predict that the dealer will win on the car repossession, the lady will win on the name registration and the lowdownyers will all win win win $$$$$$$$$!
“an uncommon tactic to let people take possession of a car under preliminary terms, then come back later and say ‘sorry, you didn’t qualify for THAT loan, but here’s what we can do to for you now.”
“BINGO”
If you are financing a car, you almost always sign a form which says “if there’s a problem with the loan you have to immediately pay for the car or bring it back”. Crooked dealers use it to get you to initially sign for terms they know the bank won’t approve and stick you with a much worse loan the next day.
Used to sell cars. Cars don’t get delivered unless down payments and or bank loans are approved.
Once the bank approves, its on the BANK if the person shouldn’t have qualified.
The Bank would have to pursue legal action, but NO WAY should the dealer be able to repossess the car.
They were too anxious to sell her the car they never bothered to vet the application. Tuff on them.
Mentioned this debacle to a car dealer. He gave me a little insight.
Dealerships have relationships with various lenders. These lenders give them “guidelines” to follow when selling outside of banking hours. A credit score from this to this, income of this, and you can calculate whether or not they qualify and for what interest rate. Problems occur when...
The customer lies about income.
The customer has a drastic change in their credit score.
The financing company changes their guidelines over the weekend.
Those are the LEGITIMATE problems that occur. On the slimy side, other reasons a deal needs to be renegotiated...
Math errors. Yep, even with computers, the finance guy at the dealership occasionally makes mistakes.
Greed. There is a financing deal with a much larger kickback to the dealer out there and they are trying to move the deal to that plan.
A better offer. Someone else wants the car and will pay considerably more for it. If they increase their take on the financing OR get the customer to give back the car so they can sell it to the other customer, they win either way.
They let her take the car home. They chose...poorly
So first she welches out on paying what she owes for the car, and then she pulls off a legal stunt to injure them further. No one should have sympathy for her.
Love it!
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2025/2025-Ohio-2562.pdf
McCreary v. Taylor Cadillac, Inc., 2025-Ohio-2562
At 4:
Third Assignment of ErrorThe court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to enforce a binding arbitration agreement on the separate claim against Taylor Cadillac Inc. for using the fictitious name of Taylor Kia of Lima after the name was registered to Plaintiff.
At 13:
-13-Third Assignment of Error
{¶29} McCreary argues that the claims she raised regarding Taylor Cadillac’s continued use of the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Legal Standard
{¶30} “[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit” because “arbitrators derive their authority to resolve disputes” from the consent of the parties. Ohio Council 8 v. Marion, 2016-Ohio-1144, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.), quoting AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648-650 (1986). Thus, in deciding what matters are subject to arbitration, “[t]he overarching issue is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue.” Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati, 2006-Ohio-657, ¶ 19.
{¶31} Where a dispute exists over the scope of an arbitration agreement, courts must first examine the language of the relevant provision. U.S. Bank Natl.
-14-
Assn. v. Allen, 2016-Ohio-2766, ¶ 31 (3d Dist.). “[A] proper method of analysis here is to ask if an action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue. If it could, it is likely outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Alexander v. Wells Fargo Financial Ohio 1, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2962, ¶ 24, quoting Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2003).
Standard of Review
{¶32} Appellate courts review a decision as to whether a party has agreed to submit a particular claim or issue to arbitration de novo. Fries v. Greg G. Wright & Sons, LLC, 2018-Ohio-3785, ¶ 38 (1st Dist.); Portnoy v. Thryv Yellow Pages, 2024-Ohio-5977, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.); Crider v. GMRI, Inc., 2020-Ohio-3668, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). De novo review is conducted independently without deference to the decision of the trial court. In re Baughman Irrevocable Trust, 2025-Ohio-1892, ¶ 17 (3d Dist.).
Legal Analysis
{¶33} In the sixth claim in her complaint, McCreary requested an injunction and damages for Taylor Cadillac’s use of a fictitious name that is registered to her. On appeal, she argues that this claim does not fall under the arbitration agreement. The scope of the arbitration agreement is set forth in the following provision:
Binding arbitration shall include all disputes whether based upon contract, tort, state or federal statute laws or otherwise, and whether for money damages, penalties, declaratory relief, or equitable relief arising out of or in any way related to this consumer transaction. Binding arbitration shall be used to resolve all claims arising from the purchase or lease of the vehicle, financing, warranties, repairs, attempting to obtain financing, the purchase or any optional insurance,-15-
service or maintenance agreements, or aftermarket products, or any document or relationship established in this transaction or related transaction regardless of whether the transactions were consummated.(Emphasis added.) (Doc. 10, Ex. A). In the transaction referred to in this provision, McCreary sought to purchase a vehicle from Taylor Cadillac. The sixth claim in the complaint does not arise from and is not related to McCreary’s attempted purchase of a vehicle. Rather, this claim is a separate matter that could be pursued independently of the other claims in the complaint that address the consumer transaction at issue. Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration. Accordingly, the third assignment of error is sustained.
Sounds like there wasn’t enough time for her to miss one payment.
Agreed. Maybe it will be worth it for the education on how to do business.
I think most states have a brief “cooling off” period regarding buying cars.
Why would they win the car repossession. She didn’t do anything wrong - they did.
The Gulf of Kia Lima?
You can point out in the article where it says she “welches” good sir?
Oh please! I hope she gets paid a lot to get their name back. They sound shady and since it’s a used car lot. Shadier of them all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.