A Wisconsin consumer’s Wisconsin Consumer Act lawsuit against a credit union over the repossession of her vehicle has been dismissed after a state appeals court found that her statements during the repossession did not rise to the level of a legally recognized objection, and that false income information on her credit application stripped her of key statutory protections.
The background: The plaintiff purchased a vehicle from a dealership in November 2019, financing it through a loan with a credit union. In early 2020, the plaintiff fell behind on payments. The credit union sent her a notice of her right to cure the default and even agreed to defer two missed payments, but she continued to miss subsequent payments. In February 2021, the credit union directed agents to take possession of the vehicle.
- The plaintiff sued the credit union and the dealership, alleging violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
- She settled with the dealership separately; her claims against the credit union centered on four issues: a defective right-to-cure notice, a breach of the peace during the repossession, an improper pre-repossession fee, and a redemption notice sent to an address where she had not lived for approximately 20 years.
- A complicating wrinkle: the credit application used to finance the vehicle listed the plaintiff’s monthly income as $2,800, which she herself acknowledged she had “never made.” The credit union argued this false statement eliminated her right to receive a cure notice under Wisconsin law.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings against the plaintiff on all claims.
- On the right-to-cure notice claim, the court found no genuine dispute that the plaintiff had made a material false statement about her income on the credit application. Under Wisconsin law, a borrower who makes such a misstatement loses the right to cure a default before a creditor takes possession of collateral, relieving the credit union of its obligation to provide advance notice.
- The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s argument that the dealership, not she, may have typed the false figure into the application, but rejected it: she signed the application certifying its accuracy, and signing a document containing false information triggers the statutory consequence regardless of who filled it in.
- On the breach-of-peace claim, the court held that the plaintiff’s statements during the repossession did not constitute an “unequivocal oral protest” as required under controlling Wisconsin precedent. Her statements included “I don’t even want you taking my car,” “I don’t agree with this at all,” and “Not without taking my car.” The court found these reflected disappointment and resignation rather than an unambiguous demand that the agents stop. The court noted that the breach-of-peace doctrine exists because a verbal objection is considered a potential “precursor to violence,” and found that none of the plaintiff’s statements rose to that threshold.
- On the $125 pre-repossession fee, the court found the credit union had a contractual and statutory basis to charge for expenses incurred while searching for the vehicle, even before it was physically recovered, and that whether the timing of the charge constituted harassment was properly a jury question rather than one resolved in the plaintiff’s favor on summary judgment.
- On the redemption notice sent to an incorrect address, the court rejected the claim because the plaintiff offered no evidence that she had actually become aware of the misdirected notice, or that it was a deliberate effort to impede her ability to redeem the vehicle.
