Consumer complaint received 2026-02-03 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Loan opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint about an auto loan that Huntington National Bank is enforcing based on a forged and altered retail installment contract submitted by the originating dealership, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX I am not in collections, but I am formally disputing the validity of the contract Huntington is relying on. I have continued making payments under protest to avoid repossession and credit damage while this dispute is pending.

Core issue : Huntington is enforcing a contract dated XX/XX/XXXX that I did not sign. The XX/XX/XXXX version appears to have been created and/or altered after my signing session ended and contains an unauthorized/forged signature placement and an invalid contract date.

1 ) Transaction and immediate rescission attempt : On XX/XX/XXXX, my son and I went to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( VIN : XXXX ) and traded in my XXXX ( owned outright with the paper title ). At the dealership, I was promised a matched trade-in amount of {$22000.00} and a sale price consistent with the advertised price that brought me in ( {$26000.00} ), and I explicitly declined any add-on products ( including XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I have a copy/screenshot of the dealership advertisement from the date of purchase showing the advertised sale price. However, the sale price on the XX/XX/XXXX contract is higher than the advertised/represented price, and I did not agree to that increase, and it also includes add-on products I explicitly declined. The lender-facing XX/XX/XXXX version submitted to Huntington reflects an even higher sale price, and I did not agree to any increase on that version either, and it also includes add-on products I explicitly declined. I was also repeatedly told by dealership finance staff that the lender would be XXXX, and I was not informed it would be Huntington until later when Huntingtons correspondence arrived.

I was rushed through a mixed signing process ( wet + electronic ). For electronic signatures, I was instructed to sign on a signature pad without being shown each document on a screen, relying only on dealership staff reading what I was signing. I was repeatedly assured I would receive complete copies of everything, including all electronically signed documents. I later learned complete copies were not provided ( despite being told they were in the glove box ). 

That same evening, after reviewing the limited paperwork I was given ( a wet-signed contract agreement missing pages ) and realizing the figures and included add-ons were materially different than what I was led to believe and had agreed to, I emailed the dealership attempting to cancel/return the vehicle and unwind the deal. During that same review, I discovered paperwork indicating a possible Power of Attorney ( POA ). Because I provided the paper title and the dealership did not need POA authority, I executed a written Revocation of POA dated XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX witness signatures, provided it to the dealership, and can prove it was received ( including by email ). Despite this revocation, XXXX records later reflect the dealership applied for a lost/replacement title. The dealership refused to address anything unless I came in person. 

The next day, my son and I met with the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), who refused to unwind the sale but stated the add-on products would be removed/refunded to the lender and would reflect in a couple of months. Huntington has repeatedly stated by phone that no refund/credit was received for those add-on products, and the charges remain in the loan balance despite my periodic follow-ups throughout XXXX. 

XXXX ) XXXX enforcing a different contract than what I signed : The contract I signed and was provided at the sale was dated XX/XX/XXXX. Later, I discovered XXXX is enforcing a different version dated XX/XX/XXXX, which is even further inflated than the original. I did not sign any contract dated XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX version contains additional language and an assignment block that were never presented to me at signing, and it bears a signature and/or placement of signature that I did not authorize, as well as an invalid contract date. 

Independently, I obtained the XXXX XXXX  audit trail for the electronic signatures after the dealership would not provide my copies. The audit trail shows I signed electronically on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX from my IP address ( XXXX ), while dealership staff signed later on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX from their IP address ( XXXX ). This confirms the dealer continued executing and finalizing documents after my signing was complete, without my knowledge or consent, and then forwarded that version to Huntington. Huntington is enforcing a XX/XX/XXXX document that appears to have been created and/or altered after my signing session ended, including an added bank assignment section that was never presented to me at signing. The documents also show a selective correction made after the fact ( trade-in described incorrectly on the XX/XX/XXXX paperwork but corrected on the XXXX lender version ), further supporting post-signing edits. 

Unauthorized forged signature, placement / fabricated payoff authorization : A side-by-side review of the XX/XX/XXXX version versus the XXXX lender version shows my signature appears in a different authorization location on the lender version ( including a trade-in payoff/payoff authorization line ) that I did not authorize. My trade-in was owned free and clear, so there was no payoff to authorize. I had the paper title in hand at the time of sale, so no payoff authorization was necessary. 

3 ) Specific harms caused by Huntingtons reliance on the forged/altered contract : Because Huntington is relying on the XX/XX/XXXX1 document rather than the contract I actually signed, I have suffered the following harms : Lost refinance opportunity/ APR harm : I was approved to refinance through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  but the refinance failed after the payoff/collateral figures Huntington had on file did not match what I signed, which I later determined stemmed from the dealership submitting the altered/inflated XX/XX/XXXX contract. I also believe the dealership withheld the complete electronically-signed document set from me so I could not timely pursue my other lender/refinancing option. For weeks I was told the lender was XXXX, yet the XX/XX/XXXX lender version is presented in a way that makes it appear XXXX was disclosed/assigned in the contract. My wet-signed XX/XX/XXXX contract copy does not contain that lender assignment/disclosure block as presented on the XX/XX/XXXX version. As a result, I lost the opportunity to refinance and have remained subject to the higher APR shown across the disputed contract versions. 

Sales tax discrepancy ( transaction reporting inconsistency ) : The sales tax figures are inconsistent across the documents for the same transaction : the XX/XX/XXXX wet-signed paperwork shows {$580.00} in sales tax ; the XX/XX/XXXX lender version shows {$730.00} in sales tax ; and the DMV/title paperwork is inconsistent, showing {$0.00} in some places and {$560.00} in others. These conflicting tax figures further support that the transaction documents and reported amounts submitted to Huntington and the XXXX are unreliable, disputed, and were altered after the fact. 

XXXX filing inconsistencies ( lien date + missing price/trade values ) : The DMV/title paperwork lists Huntington as lienholder and shows the lien as received on XX/XX/XXXX, yet XXXX is enforcing a XXXX contract dated XX/XX/XXXX. The XXXX paperwork also shows {$0.00} for sales price and {$0.00} for trade-in ( with sale price and trade-in figures appearing only on the sale contracts ). These discrepancies support the fact that the transaction reporting and documents connected to this deal are inconsistent and disputed. 

Unauthorized add-ons that I declined ( increased amounts/ no coverage ) : I was already misled about the total price at the dealership and believed the deal was thousands less than what I was ultimately presented to sign on XX/XX/XXXX. I later learned the lender-facing XX/XX/XXXX version submitted to XXXX was inflated even further and includes XXXX ( {$2200.00} ) and Key Replacement ( {$490.00} ), even though I clearly declined add-ons. The amounts on the XXXX version are higher than the amounts shown on the XX/XX/XXXX version, and there is no reason I would agree to increased add-on charges on a later date, especially after I attempted to cancel and unwind the entire deal within XXXX hours due to the discrepancies I discovered. The XXXX also confirmed in writing that these add-ons were to be refunded/removed, but Huntington reports no refund was received and the charges remain.

Additionally, I contacted the add-on providers and they confirmed there was no active coverage opened under my information/VIN, meaning I was charged for products I declined and that do not appear to have been provided. I also have written proof the dealership claimed XXXX was activated on XX/XX/XXXX ( despite provider records showing no active coverage in my name/VIN ) and despite the lender contract being dated XX/XX/XXXX, which is inconsistent with valid authorization and coverage records. 

Misrepresented/altered price and trade-in figures : The XX/XX/XXXX version reflects worse figures than what was represented at sale and worse than the advertised price I relied on. 

Equity conversion / trade-in value deception ( with documentation ) : I was promised a matched trade-in amount of {$22000.00} based on the offer I presented at the time of sale. However, the contract reflects a trade-in value of {$21000.00}. I have documentation showing the XXXX was listed for sale the next day at substantially higher amounts ( including listings reflecting {$28000.00} and later {$32000.00} ). This supports that my trade-in was undervalued on the contract compared to what was represented to me, and that the dealership converted a significant portion of my equity through deceptive valuation practices. 

Collateral inflation / lender denial ( Collateral Value ) ( with documentation ) : I have documentation that other lenders denied financing/refinancing citing Collateral Value, supporting that the dealership inflated price/collateral figures to bypass loan-to-value safeguards and restrict my financing options. 

Contract date inconsistency : DMV/title-related records reflect the sale date as XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX, consistent with my account and inconsistent with the contract Huntington is enforcing. 

Vehicle condition / mechanical unfitness ( including reconditioning misrepresentation ) : I agreed to purchase the vehicle based in part on reconditioning services I was charged for and was promised would be completed before delivery. Despite the dealership having the vehicle for over a week, it was returned with new damage and with less than half of the promised reconditioning items completed. Since the day I brought it home, the vehicle has had serious ongoing mechanical/drivability issues, including returning to the repair shop less than a month later and repeatedly thereafter, costing me thousands of dollars out of pocket. The vehicle is currently undriveable pending repairs I can not afford. I have an open manufacturer case ( XXXX CASE # XXXX ) and concerns related to XXXX Special Coverage XXXX. Huntington is financing a non-functional asset sold under disputed/fraudulent terms.

4 ) Huntington was provided evidence and refused to correct : On XX/XX/XXXX, I reported the forged signature/altered contract to XXXX with Huntington ( XXXX # XXXX ) and was told only the dealer could correct it, but that a supervisor would follow up for further details. No meaningful follow-up occurred. 

I then sent Huntington a XXXX validity dispute packet by certified mail containing : ( XXXX ) the XX/XX/XXXX contract Huntington is using, ( 2 ) the XX/XX/XXXX contract I signed, ( 3 ) the XXXX XXXX  audit trail showing signing session timing and IP addresses, ( 4 ) DMV/title records showing the XX/XX/XXXX sale date and sales tax inconsistency, ( 5 ) call notes confirming Case No. XXXX, ( 6 ) add-on provider correspondence confirming no coverage, ( 7 ) signature comparison/placement evidence, ( 8 ) the revocation of POA with two witnesses and proof of receipt, and ( 9 ) supporting documentation regarding misrepresented pricing, unauthorized add-ons, my attempted rescission within XXXX hours, and refinance denial. 

Huntingtons written response did not address the forgery/alteration evidence, the audit trail, or the contract-date inconsistency. Instead, Huntington re-sent the same disputed XX/XX/XXXX contract and continued to treat the loan as valid. 

5 ) Legal basis ( assignee liability ) and requested resolution : Under the FTC Holder Rule ( 16 CFR 433 ), assignees of consumer credit contracts that include the required notice are subject to the consumers claims and defenses against the seller. Huntington is enforcing a loan based on an instrument that was altered after my signing session ended and contains terms/signatures/dates I did not authorize, and Huntington has refused to meaningfully correct or investigate despite clear documentation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation