race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from a public assistance program, or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.A creditor’s requirement that the applicant’s spouse co-sign for the loan violates ECOA because the creditor is making a lending decision based on the marital status of the applicant. As the consumer, the applicant is entitled to the cosigner of his or her choice, so long as that person is creditworthy. Any creditor’s representation to the contrary is both false and unlawful under ECOA.
fraudulently and maliciously sold [Plaintiff] a 2010 Volkswagen Jetta (the “Vehicle”) under the description of “Certified Pre-Owned” (“CPO”), even though the Vehicle had previously suffered significant prior accident damage and had been negligently repaired.The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that GLVW made affirmative representations of fact concerning the vehicle, specifically that
The sales representative told Plaintiff that the Vehicle was a CPO vehicle and that a CPO vehicle was essentially a new car. [...] The sales representative also told Plaintiff that the Vehicle was in excellent condition and that it had been used as a loaner vehicle for customers who had dropped their vehicles off at GLVW for service appointments.The Complaint further alleges that, following a collision that occurred after Plaintiff had purchased the Vehicle, a local body shop discovered that the Vehicle had prior accident damage. The body shop determined that the repair work performed on the Vehicle was
not repaired to industry standard, creating significant safety risks and which would cost Plaintiff significant sums of money to repair. [...] Specifically, plastic filler was applied to the Vehicle’s frame to conceal structural damage, and an adhesive pad was affixed to the floor of the Vehicle’s trunk to conceal damage and the distortion of the trunk floor panel.
Plaintiff claims in the complaint that these repairs devalued the Vehicle by approximately $13,000. Plaintiff seeks to recover his damages plus punitive damages and attorney's fees from the defendants.