Top News

N.C. Dealerships Reach $225K Settlement in Predatory Loan Case

February 17, 2015

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Two used-car dealerships must change how they do business and repay customers who were affected by their predatory lending practices, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced earlier this month.

Cooper, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina brought a lawsuit against Auto Fare, Inc., Southeastern Auto Corp. and their owner, Zuhdi A. Saadeh in January 2014. The settlement reached Feb. 10 resolves that lawsuit.

“All consumers deserve to be treated fairly when they buy a car,” Cooper said. “We hope this case sends a strong message that car dealers cannot use race when targeting buyers with overpriced cars and oppressive loans.”

According to the lawsuit, the dealerships charged African American customers prices far above market rate for vehicles and signed them up for predatory loans. Cooper contends that the defendants’ actions violated North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and federal officials alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The settlement came after the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case and agreed that intentionally targeting African American customers with unfair loans, a practice known as reverse redlining, is illegal discrimination.

Under the settlement, Auto Fare, Southeastern Auto Corp. and Saadeh must change their business and lending practices to make sure their loans and vehicle repossessions are fair.  The settlement also requires defendants to pay $225,000 to compensate consumer victims. 

Both Auto Fare and Southeastern Auto Corp. are “buy here, pay here” used car dealerships, meaning Saadeh and the companies sell cars as well as provide financing to customers. Customers enter into installment sale contracts that allow them to pay for a car over a period of time.

As alleged in the lawsuit, Saadeh required unusually high down payments and charged 29% interest on car loans, the maximum allowed under state law. Payments and interest rates were set without actually assessing customers’ credit histories or their ability to make payments.

For example, as detailed in the complaint, Saadeh purchased a 2001 BMW for $7,610. The suggested retail value of the car was $10,625 but Saadeh sold it for $12,900 — a 70% markup. Even though the consumer’s only income at the time was unemployment payments, Saadeh approved financing. The customer paid $2,500 down and then made bi-weekly payments of $200. With an interest rate of 29%, the consumer ended up paying a total $20,013.42 for the car — approximately 188% of its suggested retail value.

When consumers could not keep up with the payments on their predatory car loans, the lawsuit alleged that Saadeh repossessed vehicles without reasonable notice. In some instances, the dealerships repossessed cars even though the owners were not behind on their loan payments. Saadeh sometimes used GPS devices installed without the customers’ consent to locate and repossess cars.

To prevent these unfair practices from happening in the future, the settlement requires the dealerships to charge competitive sales prices, limit buyers’ projected monthly payments to no more than 25% of a borrower’s income, offer interest rates at least five percentage points below the state’s rate cap, and offer lower interest rate for borrowers who are at lower credit risk. The dealerships must avoid adding hidden fees on top of the required down payment.

The settlement also requires Saadeh’s dealerships to allow consumers to get an independent inspection of the car before buying it, disclose more information at the time of sale (such as the presence of a GPS or automatic shut off device), provide down payment refunds to borrowers who quickly go into default, and not repossess a vehicle until at least two consecutive payments have been missed — and only after giving borrowers notices before repossession.

Comments

  1. 1. Kevin Ellis [ February 17, 2015 @ 12:14PM ]

    These people that are doing business with this used car operation sound desperate and uneducated.
    I am not saying this guy who operates this used car business is a good guy. although our government enjoys going after the car business... Meanwhile "just as one example", wall street has been extorting money from real people for years and these firms are untouchable...

  2. 2. howell clark [ February 17, 2015 @ 04:13PM ]

    i guess my question to the feds would be why does an umemployed person want a bmw and where does an unemployed person come up with 2500. down payment from. oh and sense none of that is my business, it and the whole business deal is none of the feds either. mr saadeh is probably a total slime bag but stupid is what stupid does.it doesn't matter the color of ones skin if you make crazy financial decisons. your unemployed and you decide to spend living money on a bmw, give me a break.

  3. 3. Bubba B [ February 18, 2015 @ 11:35AM ]

    ? Shame on Mr. Sadeeh for attempting to make a profit. If I pay $25 for a loaf of bread that costs the grocer $1, is that unethical? If I have a grocery store credit card that has a 25% interest rate and I only make the minimum monthly payment, that loaf of bread will end up costing me over $100. Sure - the guy loaned money to someone who is unemployed, but if the customer totals the car or drives it into a lake, who bears the risk - Mr. Sadeeh. It's not like he's pulling the wool over the eyes of a bank who is buying the contract.

    There's a line in the movie 'White Men Can't Jump' where the Woody Harrelson character says "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win." I think the BMW customer mentioned in this article operates under that mentality.

  4. 4. Rich W. [ February 19, 2015 @ 06:44AM ]

    I believe that violations such as this should be cause to revoke a dealership's license, any bonds posted to be a dealer, and force a 5-7 year ban from working in the automotive industry in any sales, finance, or management position.

    If a dealer were at risk of losing their dealership by violating State and Federal Equal Treatment laws, perhaps they would not engage in such actions.

  5. 5. Mike M [ February 21, 2015 @ 02:17PM ]

    I won't try to defend the dealer in this instance because I simply don't know enough of the facts. However, I am going to take exception with the settlement terms as laid out by the DOJ. First of all, when did the DOJ get into the business of loaning money? Limiting Apr to at least 5% below the state cap? Why have a cap in the first place? Regulating payment to income ratios on loans? This from an agency and government body that can't police its very own spending? Competitive sales prices? Who gets to determine what that means? I thought the market determined that. If a business isn't competitive, it usually if forced to close its doors. Oh, but that's not a problem for a governmental body that's overrun with bureaucrats trying to justify their existence so that they can secure the next massive budget increase, "See, we need more taxpayer money so we can protect taxpayers from themselves!" Sometimes I wish that the people who point fingers would realize that they've got three pointing back at themselves.

 

Your Comment

Please note that comments may be moderated. 
Leave this field empty:
Your Name:  
Your Email:  

CLOSE [X]

READ NEXT

Dealertrack, Hyundai Partner on Digital Marketing

Hyundai dealers across the United States will now have the ability to incorporate Dealertrack’s integrated websites, inventory merchandising, digital retailing and advertising tools into their dealership’s digital marketing strategies and operations.