EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Most of the suits covered in this series involve letters, texts, and phone calls. This one involves a tow truck. A repossession company is facing a claim it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and it and an auto dealership are facing state-law claims, over a vehicle that was allegedly taken in the early morning hours from behind a locked gate at a time when, the plaintiff says, he was not in default on his loan.
The background: The dispute centers on the repossession of a pickup truck.
- The plaintiff owned a 2015 pickup truck that he financed through an auto loan originated by a lender.
- The loan was later acquired or bought back by the dealership that is named as a defendant, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff acknowledges he briefly fell behind on his payments at some point before August 2025.
- The dealership contracted with a repossession company to recover the vehicle.
- At approximately 3:30 a.m. on August 15, 2025, the repossession company allegedly took the vehicle from the plaintiff’s private yard, which was secured by a locked gate accessible only to residents, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff alleges he was not in default at the time of the repossession and retained the legal right to possession of the vehicle.
- The plaintiff was able to recover his personal belongings from inside the vehicle but has not gotten the vehicle back despite demanding its return, and the defendants allegedly continue to hold it.
The claims: The suit brings one federal count against the repossession company and two state-law counts against both defendants.
- The repossession company is accused of violating Section 1692f(6) of the FDCPA, which bars a debt collector from taking nonjudicial action to dispossess property when there is no present right to possession of that property. The plaintiff also invokes the general prohibition in Section 1692f against unfair or unconscionable collection means.
- Both defendants are accused of unlawful repossession under Florida’s self-help repossession statutes, which permit a secured party to take collateral without judicial process only after default and only where it can be done without a breach of the peace.
- Both defendants are accused of conversion for exercising control over the vehicle after allegedly having no right to take it.
