A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and a series of state laws when it repossessed the plaintiff’s vehicle while she was out of state with her kids for a family funeral.
The background: In early 2024, the plaintiff financed the purchase of a 2019 Kia Sorento through the defendant.
- A few months later, the defendant sent the plaintiff a notice of intent to repossess, citing missed payments in March and April. That summer, it sent a notice that the account had been charged off in the amount of $24,842.01 and ceased active collection communications, after which, the plaintiff claimed, the defendant “stayed silent.”
- Last June, more than a year after the original notice, the defendant repossessed the vehicle in New York City, where the plaintiff was traveling with her four young children for a family funeral.
- The plaintiff, representing herself, filed suit alleging nine claims, including breach of contract, wrongful repossession under the FDCPA and the Uniform Commercial Code, and violations of the EFTA, Maryland’s repossession notice statute, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, along with invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The plaintiff argued the defendant was required to send a fresh 10-day notice before repossessing, that it likely shared her location with repossession agents because the vehicle was taken less than 24 hours after she arrived in New York, and that storing her personal property five hours from her home made retrieval an undue burden.
The ruling: Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion, dismissing all nine claims.
- Judge Hurson wrote that nothing in the contract required a renewed notice before repossession; the contract allowed the defendant to take the vehicle upon default as long as it did so peacefully, and Maryland’s statute makes pre-repossession notice discretionary in the first place.
- The post-repossession notice satisfied the statute on every point, spelling out the plaintiff’s right to redeem, where the vehicle was stored, and the time and place of the auction where it would be sold.
- The contract’s arbitration clause, providing that either party “may require” arbitration, refuted the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was obligated to initiate arbitration on her behalf.
- The FDCPA claim failed because the plaintiff’s own exhibits showed the defendant held an enforceable security interest and a right to repossess, and the privacy claim rested on speculation that the defendant “may have” used GPS to track the vehicle.
- On the emotional distress claim, the judge acknowledged he had no doubt the repossession during a funeral trip “was a difficult experience,” but wrote that conclusory allegations of injury fail to generate a viable claim.
