A District Court judge in Florida has dismissed a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a lender over the handling of her car loan, ruling that she waited too long to sue and that her remaining state law claim could not proceed against a federally regulated bank.
The background: The dispute grew out of a vehicle the plaintiff financed and later struggled to pay on time.
- In September 2023, the plaintiff bought a car and signed a retail installment sale contract calling for 72 monthly payments of $479.35, beginning that November.
- The plaintiff missed several payments in 2024 and 2025. Interest accrued during the gaps, and some later payments covered only the interest that had built up.
- The plaintiff complained that her principal balance was not dropping as she expected despite accelerated payments, and that her payments were being misapplied and improperly recalculated. The defendant reviewed the account and said it had made no errors.
- The plaintiff sued for the money she believed she was wrongly charged and for damage to her credit, raising claims under TILA, the FDCPA, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
The ruling: Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss all three claims.
- The judge found the TILA claim untimely. That law requires a suit within one year of the violation, and the clock runs from when the violation occurs, not when a borrower discovers it. Because the alleged disclosure problem dated to the September 2023 sale and the plaintiff sued more than two years later, the claim was too late. A passing reference to equitable tolling did not save it, since the plaintiff offered no developed argument or authority.
- The FDCPA claim failed for the same reason. It also carries a one-year window that starts when the violation occurs rather than when it is discovered, and it rested on the same 2023 disclosure.
- The state law claim failed because the statute exempts federally regulated banks, and the defendant is a national bank.
- All three counts were dismissed with prejudice, because the judge found that no better drafted complaint could cure the timing and coverage problems.
