Consumer complaint received 2025-06-03 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Problem with signing the paperwork
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a Retail Installment Sales Contract ( hereinafter RISC ) for the purchase of a motor vehicle from a car dealership located at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXY XXXX XXXX. Upon review of the RISC and associated documentation, I discovered that two separate business names were used to identify the seller/dealer in the contract. This inconsistent identification raises a material ambiguity as to the true party with whom I entered into a binding agreement. 
3. Under the Uniform Commercial Code 2-201, as adopted in New York ( UCC - 2-201 ( 1 ) ), a contract for the sale of goods must be in writing and sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties. A contract that does not clearly and consistently identify the seller fails this requirement. 
4. Furthermore, the Restatement ( Second ) of Contracts 131 requires that a written contract must identify the subject matter and the parties to be enforceable. The presence of two business names on a single RISC violates this principle and introduces ambiguity about who the legal counterparty is.

5. Additionally, under Restatement ( Second ) of Contracts 20, there can be no manifestation of mutual assent to a contract if the parties attach materially different meanings to its terms, particularly with regard to party identity. 
XXXX. In New York case law, contracts must be sufficiently definite so that the full intention of the parties may be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ). The use of multiple business names defeats this certainty. 
7. If this dual-naming was intentional or done to obscure liability, it may be construed as a deceptive practice in violation of New York General Business Law 349, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business. 

XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  acting on behalf of GM FINANCIAL engaged in conduct resulting in the unlawful repossession of my vehicle. 
. This repossession was carried out without prior notice, court order, or judicial process, and involved a clear breach of the peace, including but not limited to : Entering my private property without permission Use of force or threats Attempting repossession while I objected or was present and protesting Deceptive practices Damaging and stealing my personal property during repossession XXXX. Pursuant to UCC 9-609, as adopted by New York law , a creditor may only repossess collateral without a breach of the peace. The actions taken on the above date were in violation of this law. 
10. Under New York common law, such conduct voids the repossession and exposes the creditor to liability. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the court affirmed that breach of peace during repossession XXXX constitute a tortious act. 
11. Additionally, the repossession was performed by a third-party debt collector, it may violate provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ), which prohibits threats, misrepresentation, or abusive conduct. 
XXXX. I therefore assert that the repossession of my vehicle was unlawful and in violation of my rights under state and federal law. I respectfully request that the creditor provide documentation of proper authority, any court orders used, and a full explanation of the process used to repossess the vehicle. 

WRONGFUL REPOSSESSION Despite clear notice that this contract is under formal dispute and arbitration, GM Financial and its agents proceeded to unlawfully seize my vehicle. This was done without proper legal authority, in direct retaliation for my lawful exercise of dispute resolution rights, and in violation of my due process. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX carried out the repossession without verifying the legitimacy of the contract or confirming legal grounds existed. The act of seizing my vehicle under these conditions constitutes conversion and unauthorized taking of property. 
Your repossession of the vehicle was unlawful under both state repossession laws and the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ).

Under UCC 9-609 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( as adopted in New York ) , a secured party may not breach the peace or act without legal authority to repossess.

N.Y. U.C.C. Law 9-609 requires that repossession be conducted lawfully and only when a valid security interest exists.

Because the contract is void due to fraud, there was no valid security interest permitting the repossession. 
Additionally, the repossession occurred while a formal arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. 116 ) was pending, which may also constitute retaliatory action and bad-faith interference in a legal dispute.

Conversion and Civil Theft The repossession involved not only the unlawful seizure of the vehicle, but also the removal and/or damage of personal property contained inside.

Under New York law : Conversion is defined as the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another. 

______ The creditor had no legal authority to take or interfere with my personal belongings, and your continued possession of the vehicle and its contents constitutes civil theft and conversion. 
4. Violations of TILA ( Truth in Lending Act ) 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) and 12 C.F.R. 1026 ( Regulation Z ) require accurate disclosure of the creditor and terms of financing.

5. Violation of New York General Business Law 349 The use of deceptive dealership documentation, a fraudulent contract, and wrongful repossession tactics are all violations of GBL 349, which protects consumers from deceptive or misleading business practices IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF * * Violation of Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) * * Double the finance charge ( capped at {$2000.00} ), plus attorneys fees. 
* * Violation of New York General Business Law 349 * * {$1000.00} statutory damages, actual damages, and attorneys fees. 
* * Common Law Fraud/ Fraudulent Inducement * * Contract rescission and full restitution.

* * Unlawful Repossession & Breach of Peace * * Property damage costs and consequential losses.

* * Breach of Contract / Arbitration Clause * * Contract cancellation and punitive damages. 
* * Punitive Damages * * {$50000.00} x 4

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation