Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle
Company: World Omni Financial Corp.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
XXXX is taking mutually inconsistent positions about the same debt, collateral and account outcome. The XXXX XXXX XXXX was listed in my Chapter 7 bankruptcy and treated as surrendered. My bankruptcy counsel confirmed in XX/XX/XXXX that no motion was filed concerning a dealership payoff and that the petition reflected surrender of the vehicle, with the debt to be discharged. XXXX now claims the same account was paid in full/closed following an XX/XX/XXXX dealership payoff. Those two positions can not simply coexist without a documented reconciliation. This is not merely a credit-reporting dispute. The credit reporting appears to be the mechanism through which an unresolved bankruptcy-accounting contradiction is being obscured. XXXX can not rely on the bankruptcy record when convenient, accept payoff funds when convenient, and then shift responsibility to consumer reporting agencies when the resulting record becomes inconsistent. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, furnishers have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation after notice of dispute and to correct information that is inaccurate, incomplete or can not be verified. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Furnishers also may not report information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ). The problem here is not simply whether one field says paid or bankruptcy. The problem is that the full account history is materially misleading unless XXXX reconciles the bankruptcy surrender, the alleged payoff, the collateral disposition, the co-borrower treatment and the credit reporting history. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX courts have recognized that credit reporting can violate the FCRA even when some individual pieces of information are technically true, if the overall reporting creates a materially misleading impression. In XXXX XXXX XXXX Banking XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX recognized furnisher liability where reporting was misleading in a way that could adversely affect credit decisions. In XXXX v. XXXX University, the XXXX XXXX likewise held that technically accurate reporting may still be actionable if it is misleading enough to have an adverse effect. ( XXXX XXXX ) Bankruptcy law makes the contradiction even more serious. The filing of a bankruptcy petition triggers the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362. After discharge, 11 U.S.C. 524 operates as an injunction against attempts to collect a discharged debt. If XXXX contends the XXXX debt was resolved through bankruptcy surrender/discharge, then its reporting and account treatment must reflect that legal reality. If XXXX contends the account was instead resolved through a dealership payoff, then it must explain why no court record, trustee notice, motion, authorization or correction exists showing that the bankruptcy treatment changed. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) That is the unresolved issue your closure letter does not address. XXXXs response admits the account was part of the bankruptcy filing and also claims it was paid in full. It then blames XXXX or other consumer reporting agencies for continued inconsistent reporting. But that does not answer the controlling question : how did XXXX lawfully and accurately treat the same collateral and debt as both surrendered in bankruptcy and paid off by a dealership? I respectfully request that your office reconsider closure and require XXXX to provide : 1. A transaction-level accounting of the XX/XX/XXXX payoff, including the source of funds, payoff quote, amount received, date received, balance satisfied and whether any surplus or deficiency existed. 2. A bankruptcy reconciliation explaining whether XXXX treated the XXXX as surrendered/discharged or paid in full, and identifying any court filing, trustee communication, motion, notice or authorization supporting that treatment. 3. A collateral/title history showing when the lien was released, who received title, and whether the vehicle was repossessed, surrendered, sold, paid off or otherwise transferred. 4. A full XXXX XXXX and consumer-reporting history for all bureaus showing every status code, bankruptcy indicator, balance, payment status and correction submitted from XX/XX/XXXX to present. 5. An explanation of the co-borrower treatment, including why my account and XXXX XXXX account were treated differently if the same collateral and debt were involved. Without those records, XXXX response is not a resolution. It is an unsupported conclusion. The issue is not that I simply disagree with credit reporting. The issue is that XXXX credit reporting appears to conceal an unreconciled bankruptcy-accounting event : the same vehicle was treated as surrendered in my Chapter 7 case while XXXX also accepted payoff funds, without providing a coherent record showing how the debt, collateral, title, bankruptcy estate and consumer reporting were lawfully resolved. I also want to clarify an important issue that SETFs response does not address. If XXXX XXXX remained obligated on the XXXX loan and continued making payments, why did XXXX seek or rely on relief from the automatic stay to pursue repossession of the vehicle? Relief from stay in my Chapter 7 case would relate to my bankruptcy protection. It does not explain why XXXX treated the vehicle as subject to surrender and repossession if the co-borrower remained liable, was not discharged through my bankruptcy, and payments were being made. This creates another unresolved contradiction : XXXX treated the XXXX as bankruptcy collateral when it wanted authority to recover or repossess the vehicle, but later treated the same account as paid in full following a dealership payoff. At the same time, the co-borrower account appears to have remained active and payments were being made. That sequence requires explanation. If the loan was being paid by the non-bankrupt co-borrower, then XXXX must explain : Why stay relief was sought or relied upon ; Whether the account was actually in default at the time ; Whether XXXX XXXX payments were credited ; Why repossession activity occurred despite continued payment activity ; Whether the dealership payoff was treated as satisfaction of the same debt ; Why the bankruptcy court record still reflects surrender if XXXX now claims the account was paid in full. This is the unresolved accounting and bankruptcy issue that the credit reporting appears to obscure. Please provide all documents XXXX relies on to claim or report a loss, charge-off, discharge, deficiency, or bankruptcy-related account resolution for the XXXX XXXX XXXX account, including : 1. The complete account ledger from the bankruptcy filing date through final account closure. 2. The proof of claim, amended proof of claim, withdrawal of claim, reaffirmation records, surrender records, relief-from-stay motion, agreed order, trustee communications, and any court filings involving the XXXX. 3. Any internal charge-off, bankruptcy loss, deficiency balance, loss mitigation, recovery, repossession, collateral liquidation, or account-closing records. 4. Any IRS reporting, including Form 1099-C, cancellation-of-debt records, tax-loss treatment, write-off records, reserve adjustments, or internal accounting entries reflecting a bankruptcy loss. 5. Any documents showing the fair market value of the XXXX, payoff balance, sale proceeds, dealer payoff amount, deficiency calculation, surplus calculation, title transfer, lien release, or collateral disposition. 6. Any insurance, GAP, auction, recovery, repossession, refund, dealer, or third-party payment records applied to the account. 7. The complete XXXX XXXX reporting history showing how XXXX reported the account to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, including all bankruptcy indicators, account status codes, payment history codes, balance fields, special comment codes and correction submissions. 8. Any internal notes, audit logs, screenshots, or correspondence explaining why XXXX reported or instructed any bureau to report the account as surrendered, discharged, included in bankruptcy, paid in full, closed, repossession-related, or otherwise resolved. 9. Any document showing whether XXXX claimed a financial loss, tax loss, deficiency, bad-debt write-off, bankruptcy loss, or creditor recovery while also accepting the XX/XX/XXXX dealership payoff. 10. A written reconciliation explaining whether XXXX position is that the account was resolved by bankruptcy surrender/discharge, dealership payoff, repossession/collateral recovery, co-borrower payment performance, or some combination of those events. What exactly was discharged after XXXX received the payoff funds and after the title/lien transaction occurred one day before discharge? That is where the double-recovery concern lives. If they claim a bankruptcy discharge/loss, they must show the remaining deficiency after applying the {$19000.00}. If there was no deficiency, then reporting a discharged/surrendered debt is materially misleading. If there was a deficiency, they must identify the amount, the date it arose, how the payoff was applied, and how that deficiency was reported to the court, trustee, CRAs and internal loss/recovery systems. If they state its paid off, they must reopen the CH 7 Discharge and report accurately with the Court. They reported it surrendered and discharged and are using the credit reporting to conceal the double dipping.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation