Ross Law LLC Prevails In another Arbitration Against Stop and Go Auto

Last month I posted about prevailing in  my recent case against Stop and Go Auto (AKA G&G Auto Enterprises LLC) in an arbitration matter.  Jeremiah Ross represented three other clients in a matter against Stop and Go Auto.   The Arbitrator awarded two of the clients damages totaling almost $45,000.00.  

The case was a complex transaction where three relatives attempted to purchase three vehicles from Stop and Go.   In doing so, one of the consumers provided property to trade in for her vehicle.    Ross Law was able to prove Stop and Go Auto unlawfully rolled the Negative Equity into the price of the new car.   Ross Law also proved Stop and Go used an illusory cash down payment that did not exist and noted it on the Retail Installment Contract.  Ross Law also proved Stop and Go failed to list the value given for four wheeler on the Retail Installment Contract   These were all violations of the Truth In Lending Act.  Ross Law also proved Stop and Go violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by not properly accounting for all of the property that was traded in, rolling in the negative equity to the purchase price, falsely advertising the price of the vehicle, and failing to give the consumer her key's back when asked. 

The second Consumer's case involved an unlawful Yo-Yo Sale.   After the three consumers left the lot with their vehicle, one consumer was called back in a couple of days later and told he got a better financing deal.  Unbeknownst to him the loan term was extended and the financing rate was increased.   This scheme allowed Stop and Go to lower the monthly payment while charging a substantial amount more to finance the vehicle.  Stop and Go also did not account for the property that was traded in to purchase this vehicle.    These were violations of the Truth In Lending Act and/or the UTPA. 

This case was also unique in the fact the consumers had attempted to settle their case with the dealer before I was involved.  They signed a release and waiver of all of their rights.  Basically they singed a piece of paper saying they would not sue the dealer.    I used the law to defeat the defense's claim that the consumers already settled their case. 

This was a very complicated case that another Attorney had turned down.   There were good facts and bad facts for both of the parties.  However, at the end of the day the arbitrator found in favor of my clients.   If you have any issues with an Oregon Used Car Dealer please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  Please note results may vary and there is no guarantee Ross Law LLC can prevail in your lawsuit.  

Visitors Fed Up With Localism Use The Law To Fight Back

Many people perceive surfers as being a mellow peaceful friendly group of people.   However, there is also an ugly side of the surfing community.  Many local surfers use violence, threats, intimidation, vandalism and even sexual abuse to drive off other surfers.   These "locals" fear there are not enough good waves for everyone, so they use these tactics to ensure their local waves do not become overcrowded.  As a surfer myself, I have witnessed localism all up and down the West Coast.

A recent LA Times article chronicles the what happens when localism goes unchecked.   The article focuses on the "Bay Boys" in Palos Verdes Estates, Ca.   The Bay Boys is a group of surfing men that come from wealthy backgrounds that have lived and surfed Lunada Bay for years.   They are known as being notoriously hostile to visitors and any surfer that is not known to them.   They constantly verbally abuse visitors, throw rocks at them, and use whatever means necessary to keep people from surfing Lunada Bay.  Law Enforcement is often of little help and does little if anything to hold the Bay Boys accountable for their actions.

People finally got sick of the Bay Boys' antics and have filed a Class Action Lawsuit against them in an attempt to restore law and order to Lunada Bay.   The lawsuit is seeking to prevent the Bay Boys from congregating at Lunada Bay and will force the police to investigate incidents at Lunada Bay.

If you are the victim of a crime and would like to know your rights and remedies against the wrongdoer, please call Portland Oregon Attorney Jeremiah Ross.  Please call Ross Law LLC at 503.224.1658.  Also, please remember this post is for informational purposes only.   If you have any questions related to the law or the issues in this post please call a lawyer.  

ROSS LAW PREVAILS AGAINST STOP AND GO AUTO

Ross Law prevailed against Stop and Go Auto in private arbitration. The case involved the sale of a truck to a young man. Stop and Go falsely advertised the truck as having a tow package, when in fact it did not.

Arbitrator’s Decision

Stop and Go also subjected the consumer to a classic “Yo-Yo” scam.   Stop and Go informed the consumer that the truck purchase was final.  A few days later Stop and Go called the consumer back requesting that he return to Stop and Go to sign financing documents.  When the consumer returned to sign the documents, Stop and Go used deceptive tactics to increase the purchase price of the vehicle by $1500.00.

Jeremiah Ross was able to prove Stop and Go Auto violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608) and The Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638et seq.)   As a result, Jeremiah Ross’ client was awarded over $8,000.00 in damages in addition to costs, and attorney  fees.

Attorneys involved:

Attorney Jeremiah Ross of Portland Oregon represented the Consumer in the matter.

Attorney Richard Franklin of Gresham Oregon defended Stop and Go (AKA G&G Enterprises), and Great American Insurance Company.

JEREMIAH ROSS HONORED BY OREGON STATE BAR

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.

OREGON’S RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT LAW

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.

ROSS LAW FEATURED IN NEWS ARTICLE REGARDING NEGLIGENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Jeremiah Ross was recently featured in an Astoria Oregon Newspaper article.

The Full article is below:

Family pursues legal action over suicide

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.”