Amusement parks are cherished destinations where memories are made and thrills are experienced. By adhering to these regulations, amusement parks contribute to a vibrant and secure environment that allows visitors to embark on unforgettable journeys while knowing that their safety is in capable hands. Here is what you need to know if you are injured….
Jeremiah Ross received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Oregon State Bar for his service on the Oregon State Bar Uniform Civil Jury Instructions Committee. The committee is responsible for drafting instructions Oregon Judges and lawyers use to educate the jury on points of law.
If you need assistance with a legal matter, call Oregon Trial Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. He is happy to help people injured by negligence of others, crime victims, and consumers.
Attorneys representing clients in a case involving the purchase of a motor vehicle must carefully review the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) for statutory violations and other causes of action. The RIC is a valuable tool that can reveal UTPA violations, Truth In Lending Act (TILA) Violations, and violations of the Oregon Administrative Rules. Oregon Law has specific provisions that apply to every RIC in Oregon. These statutes should be reviewed before drafting a Complaint or demand letter.
ORS 83.510(11) defines what a RIC is. Basically the RIC is an agreement entered into in Oregon where the vehicle dealer holds the the title to the vehicle or a lien upon a motor vehicle, which is the subject matter of a retail installment sale. Retail installment sales make up the vast majority of vehicle sales in Oregon.
Oregon Law specifically prescribes the form and contents of the RIC. Most consumer’s are provided the long pink piece of paper noting “Retail Installment Contract” on the heading. ORS 83.520 notes a retail installment contract shall be in writing, shall contain all the agreements of the parties, shall contain identifying information relating to the dealer, purchaser, and vehicle. ORS 83.520 has other statutory mandates, but the most important mandates are found in section 3. This section is where statutory violations can be found.
ORS 83.520(3) (a) mandates the RIC to contain the “cash sale price” of the vehicle. The “cash sale price” is defined as the price for which the vehicle dealer would sell to the consumer, and the consumer would buy from the motor vehicle dealer, if the sale were a sale for cash instead of a retail installment contract. The “cash sale price” can include, taxes, registration, license fees and other charges for accessories and their instillation, and for vehicle improvements.
ORS 83.520(3) is very important if you are addressing a negative equity issue with the vehicle trade in. OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits a negative equity adjustment when trading in a vehicle to purchase another vehicle. The negative equity issue arises if the consumer owes more than the trade-in is worth. (See OAR 137-020-0020(2)(t) and (u) for a more detailed explanation of negativeequity.) OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits the vehicle dealer from raising the “cash sale price” of the new vehicle to offset the negative equity in the trade-in. An unlawful negative equity violation may result in a UTPA violation, Truth In Lending Act Violation, or other violations.
ORS 83.520(3)(b) requires the RIC to note the amount of the buyer’s down payment, itemizing the amounts, if any, paid or credited in money or in goods and containing a brief description of goods traded in. Violations of this section regularly occur when the dealer is taking in property other than a vehicle as the trade in. I represented a client that traded in a television and video games for the vehicle down payment. However, the dealership listed the traded in items as a $500.00 “cash down payment” on the RIC and failed to itemize the amounts given for the television and video games. Arguably failing to comply with this section is a violation of ORS 646.608(1)(k), and ORS 646.608(1)(s).
Another often overlooked sub-section is ORS 83.520(3)(j). That subsection mandates the RIC must include a plain and concise statement of the amount in dollars of each installment or future payment to be made by the consumer, the number of installments are required, and the date or dates which , or periods in which the installments are due. Dealers sometimes claim to have deferred a down payment that was listed as a “cash down payment.” on the RIC. Later the dealer asserts the consumer owes a certain amount of money for the down payment. However there is not anything in writing noting that the down payment is owed, and the documents note that the cash down payment has been made. This section mandates that if there are any future payments the amount and due date must be included in the RIC. Failing to include the deferred down payment in the RIC is likely a violation of ORS 646.608(1)(k) and may be a violation ofOAR 137-020-0020(3)(t).
It is important to note, once the transaction is complete the dealer must deliver or mail a copy of the RIC to the purchaser. See ORS 83.540. ORS 83.540 also allows for the consumer to rescind the deal in very limited circumstances.
Lastly, ORS 83.670 notes certain provisions in the RIC are unenforceable. This section prohibits the dealer from enforcing any provision granting the dealer power of attorney or confession of judgment. ORS 83.670 also prohibits the dealer from enforcing a provision in the RIC that allows the dealer or finance company to enter the consumers property unlawfully to repossess the vehicle . Vehicle dealers and finance companies also cannot use any provision in the RIC to commit any illegal act to collect payments.
ORS 83.670(5) is the most important sub-section. This section prohibits enforcement of any provision in the RIC, or any document executed in connection with the RIC, that relieves the vehicle dealer from, “liability for any legal remedies that the buyer may have had against the motor vehicle dealer under the contract.” ORS 83.670(5) As a result a waiver of rights or hold harmless agreement signed in conjunction with a RIC is unenforceable. Attorneys handling car cases are starting to see more and more waiver of rights forms that prohibit the consumer from exercising legal rights. Jordan Roberts wrote a fantastic blog article on the Waiver Issue that can be found by clicking here (Waiver Article).
Unfortunately, Oregon’s Vehicle Retail Installment Contract laws do not have a specific remedy provision. However, the careful practitioner can rely on these statutes to support various legal theories and allegations. If you find yourself involved in a case with vehicle financing issues, it is imperative you carefully review the RIC and ORS 83.510 et seq.
Jeremiah Ross practices personal injury law and consumer law at Ross Law LLC.
Jeremiah Ross was recently featured in an Astoria Oregon Newspaper article.
The Full article is below:
Share on gmailShare on printShare on tumblrShare on googleMore Sharing Services12
By Derrick DePledgeThe Daily Astorian
Published:November 4, 2015 8:10AM
SUBMITTED PHOTO
A makeshift memorial under the Astoria Bridge honors Carrie Barnhart, who committed suicide in April.
Family believes death was preventable
The family of the woman who jumped from the Astoria Bridge in April is preparing a lawsuit against Clatsop County and Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare, alleging her suicide was preventable and that the county and the private mental health provider failed statutory and moral obligations to protect her from harm.
Carrie Barnhart, a 54-year-old mother of six, had chronic mental illness and committed suicide a week after Astoria Police pulled her from the bridge after midnight and took her to Columbia Memorial Hospital, where she was evaluated by Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare and released after two hours.
Astoria Police had responded to suicide threats from Barnhart four times between January and April, and her family disclosed several other instances over the previous year where she had threatened to kill herself.
In a tort claim notice filed in October, Jeremiah Ross, a Portland attorney for the Barnhart family, argues that state law imposes obligations on the county, Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare and others to protect the mentally ill from harming themselves. The notice, a precursor to a lawsuit seeking damages, was also sent to Lincoln County and Benton County, where Barnhart received mental health treatment, and the Oregon Health Authority, which oversees mental health services statewide.
“Ms. Barnhart lacked the mental capacity to protect herself from harm, and Oregon law prescribes safeguards to protect her from harming herself,” Ross wrote. “From the record, it becomes apparent adequate safeguards were not in place. People and entities were not doing their jobs.”
Deficiencies in mental heath care
The notice refers to deficiencies at Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare — many of which were documented by The Daily Astorian in August — and the fact that the county renewed a contract with the private provider to administer mental health programs despite being aware of the criticism.
Ross highlighted an April email from Scott Somers, the former county manager, who, after reading about Barnhart’s suicide, wrote to a colleague that it sounded “like another case of denying admission to someone in need. This is the consistent message we’ve been hearing.”
“CBH’s failures made Carrie Barnhart’s suicide inevitable, because Ms. Barnhart’s suicide, ‘was another case of denying admission to someone in need,’” Ross wrote in the tort claim notice.
The state Office of Adult Abuse Prevention and Investigations is conducting an investigation into Barnhart’s death. The state could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday about the status of the investigation.
Clatsop County forwarded the tort claim notice to Citycounty Insurance Services in Salem, the county’s insurance carrier. Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare is reviewing the notice with counsel and had no further comment.
Committed to improving care
In August, Sumuer Watkins, the executive director of Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare, told The Daily Astorian in a written statement that the agency is committed to improving crisis-response services.
A crisis respite center being planned for Warrenton is expected to provide an alternative to jail or hospitalization, a potential safety valve that could help prevent patients like Barnhart from being released too early.
Mental health treatment is a challenge across Oregon, particularly in rural parts of the state, but Barnhart’s suicide called attention to the persistent gaps in Clatsop County, where the two major hospitals — Columbia Memorial Hospital and Providence Seaside — are not certified to provide involuntary care, custody or treatment for the mentally ill.
District Attorney Josh Marquis said in July that the county is in crisis on mental health. Astoria Police Chief Brad Johnston and several of his police officers have also been exasperated that mental health intervention too often falls to law enforcement.
Struggle with mental illness
The tort claim notice outlines Barnhart’s struggle with mental illness in greater detail than her family had previously disclosed publicly.
Barnhart, according to the notice, had been brought to Columbia Memorial Hospital and Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare’s attention in November 2014 because she was having hallucinations. She was transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital in Corvallis in Benton County for treatment.
The notice claims Barnhart was released in December 2014 to her family’s trailer in Toledo, in Lincoln County, but that neither Benton nor Lincoln counties provided follow-up services.
After her family brought Barnhart back to live in Astoria, she drew the attention of Astoria Police, Columbia Memorial Hospital and Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare in January after she cut her neck with a knife. She was transferred to Salem Hospital for care.
After two more suicide threats in January — one where Astoria Police learned she had been hearing voices telling her to jump off the Astoria Bridge and another where police found her on the bridge — she was again taken to Columbia Memorial Hospital, evaluated by Clatsop Behavioral Healthcare and transferred to Good Samaritan in Corvallis.
Barnhart was eventually discharged from the hospital and returned to her family in Astoria. Police intercepted her on the bridge one last time before she finally carried out her suicide plan in late April.
‘Cracks in the system’
While the tort claim notice foreshadows a complaint for monetary damages, Ross said the family wants answers about what happened to Barnhart.
“A lot of it is about getting answers and trying to hold some people accountable,” Ross said.
Artanya Barnhart, Barnhart’s daughter, said she wants to ensure that “this doesn’t happen to another family and that family has to go through this senseless pain.
“I just think there are cracks in the system and it needs to be fixed.”
A recent Oregonian article highlights the various concerns about UBER and similar ride-share services. Recently a young woman was waiting in front of a Portland Oregon bar. She had used her UBER phone app to request an UBER pick her up. A large male driver appeared and asked her if she was waiting for an UBER. She confirmed she was.
Jeremiah Ross recently spoke at the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association relating to litigating Sex Abuse cases and Intentional Torts against Federal Government Contractors.
If you have been a victim of an assault or sexual abuse while you were attending a Job Corps program, were working on a Forest Fire on Federal Government Property, or working on a trail crew for the US Forest Service, call Portland Oregon Sex Abuse attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 to discuss your options.
Below is a list obtained from the Oregon Dept. Motor Vehicles quarterly report that notes the auto dealers and dealerships that were sanctioned by the DMV recently. Ross Law is republishing this information to assist consumers in making informed purchases. The information should be used with caution and consumers should check with the Oregon DMV to obtain the most updated reliable information related to dealer sanctions in Oregon.
VIP Motors LLC Portland Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 2 2 $2,000(1 YR Probation) Issued temporary registration permit to person not domiciled in Oregon or eligible 2 2 $500
Failure to submit Dealer Notice of Vehicle Purchased within 7 days 2 4 $200
Pine Auto Sales LLC Salem Failure to maintain proper records 3 3 $1,500
(1 YR Probation) Failure to submit all documents necessary to transfer title to DMV within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Metro Motors LLC Portland Failure to follow proper procedure when issuing temporary permits 2 1 $50
(90 Day Suspension) Failure to submit Dealer Notice of Vehicle Purchased within 7 days 4 5 $1,250
Ben’s Auto Sales Inc Portland Failure to furnish DMV title/registration application within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Charging excess document preparation fee 1 5 $1,250
Failure to promptly refund excess DMV fees 3 1 $750
Luxury Motors Online Inc Portland Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 2 $500
Portland Automotive Management Inc Portland Failure to furnish title within 90 days 2 1 $1,000
dba Broadway Toyota Failure to notify purchaser/LH of delay in title documents within 25 business days 2 1 $250
All Star Auto Sales Inc Sweet Home Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 1 $250
Dependable Car Company LLC Milwaukie Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 4 $1,000
(1 YR Probation) Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 6 $6,000
Karhouse Auto Finance LLC dba Eugene Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 2 5 $5,000
Karhouse Auto Finance Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 3 6 $6,000
Failure to pay consignor within 10 days 1 1 $500
Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 33 $8,250
Keith and Brian Enterprises LLC dba 5th Gear Motorz Portland Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Miracle on 6th St LLC The Dalles Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 4 $4,000
Jones 5 Auto Sales Inc Corvallis Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 2 $2,000
M and N Dealerships IX LLC dba McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep Fiat Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 12 $12,000
All Star Auto Sales Inc Sweet Home Purchasing vehicle dealer knows or should have known has been stolen 1 1 $1,000
(1 YR Probation) Failure to maintain proper records 1 2 $500
NexGen Investments Inc Portland Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 7 $7,000
(3 YR Suspension) Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 1 1 $1,000
Erik McKeachie dba Quality Cars of Bend Bend Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 3 $3,000
Royal D Kropf dba Diamond K Sales Halsey Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Kevin C Griffi th dba G’s Auto Sales Tangent Failure to allow an administrative inspection 1 1 $1,000
(3 YR Suspension)
Ervin Latinscics Portland Failure to provide means of public contact at main business location 1 1 $250
(3 YR Suspension) Failure to display an exterior sign 1 1 $250
Failure to display dealer certifi cate in publicly accessible manner at main location 1 1 $250
Failure to maintain the original dealer records at the main business location 1 1 $250
False statement of material fact in any DMV document 1 5 $500
Lot 99 LLC Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
JJs Auto Wholesale Inc dba Northwest Auto Exchange Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 3 1 $1,000
Lot 74 LLC Portland Failure to secure proof that consignor was a registered owner/ legal owner/ lessor 1 1 $1,000
Failure to have terms of consignment agreement in writing or provide copy to consignor 1 1 $1,000
Ramon E Deardorff dba Siuslaw Automotive and Towing Florence Acting as a vehicle dismantler without a current dismantler certifi cate 1 1 $5,000
Jose Deonate-Jimenez Portland Acting as a vehicle dealer without a current dealer certifi cate 1 10 $25,000
Michael R Cary Oakridge Acting as a vehicle dealer without a current dealer certifi cate 1 9 $22,500
Earlier this year Ross Law LLC and Portland Oregon Attorney Jeremiah Ross prevailed in a legal battle against a government contractor who claimed it should be entitled to the same rights and remedies as the United States Government. The case involved a sexual abuse assault of a student who was raped at a Job Corps Center.
The link below is to the Magistrate’ s Opinion.
Order to Remand and For Attorney Fees
If you have any questions related to litigating against a Job Corps center, or are a crime victim at a Job Corps center please call Portland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.
