Ohio Woman’s Legal Revenge on Repossessed Car Shocks Dealership

Key Takeaways

1. A Kia dealership in Ohio repossessed Tiah McCreary’s car, claiming insufficient information for loan approval.
2. McCreary registered the dealership’s name after it failed to renew it, sending a cease-and-desist letter to the dealership.
3. The dealership initially won in court, citing a contract clause to reclaim its name.
4. An appeals court ruled that the name issue was separate from the repossession process and should be heard independently.
5. Both parties are returning to lower courts for further legal proceedings regarding the name dispute.

A Kia dealership in Ohio is trying to reclaim its name after a woman named Tiah McCreary took it for herself. This whole situation began when the dealership repossessed her car.

The Car Repossession Incident

The dealership, which used to be called “Taylor Kia of Lima,” repossessed McCreary’s vehicle within just a month. They sold her a pre-owned Kia K5, but later claimed in court filings that McCreary didn’t give enough information for her loan to be approved.

The Name Snatch

While exploring her legal options, McCreary saw an opportunity for some revenge. She learned that the dealership had failed to renew its business name with the Ohio Secretary of State. Seizing the moment, she registered the name in her own name. Following this, she sent a cease-and-desist letter to the dealership, demanding they stop using the name.

Courtroom Battle

In response to this identity crisis, the dealership sought help from the courts to reclaim its name. They argued that a clause in their purchase contract made McCreary’s actions invalid, and a judge agreed with them at first. However, the Third District appeals court had a different opinion, stating that the clause only applied to the repossession process and not to the issue of the name “Taylor Kia of Lima.”

According to the court ruling, the “claim is a separate matter that could be pursued independently of the other claims in the complaint that address the consumer transaction at issue. Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration.”

Source:
Link