Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
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.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Sounds like this dealership failed to do due diligence in more ways than one.
Seems like a separate matter to me.
Should have done your due diligence before selling her the car. You didn't, that is all on you.
Now if she did not make payments that is another thing but the excuse of, "we did not do our job" sounds like a you problem.
They let her take home the care based on “pre-approval”, conditional on actual approval. She didn’t get actual approval.
The dealer can’t get their loan approvals straight, and then failed to renew the name of their company. lol...
It's called an unwind. Usually involves buyers who turn out to be shady individuals.
Not saying this lady is shady.
They may be (and I agree with the appellate court) separate matters, but I suspect that if the dealership wants their name back, the settlement should be...
... the car. Free and clear.
This is one of those rare cases when I'm glad I broke the longstanding FR tradition of not reading the article before commenting.
I was about to blast her as a loser who should've made her car payments.
After 5 years my used car is finally all mine. I ended up paying 4 times what it is now worth. The first and only time I bought a car with financing.
Sounds like a great opportunity for a win-win deal here--unless she is salty enough that she'd want more than a car.
Dealerships have been known to let you take the car and then call you back in order to renegotiate the deal over some bs.
The name on the claim falls mainly on the dame.
Car dealers, more honest then government but only by a hair.
For a woman buying a second hand car, she sure has a lot of money to pursue her case through court after court.
It doesn't matter why she is trying to buy a used car through financing, only that she is.
Both parties should be on the hook.
Once you sign, that’s it.
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.