Recently SecureClose helped in a suit filed against a finance company that received a judgment for violating a stay that involved a starter interrupt.
The finance company received a contempt of court order for not paying on a judgment several months after they were supposed to appear in court. The finance company was never served properly so when they received the contempt notice they immediately responded that this notice was the first time they were told of a hearing or a court appearance. As the finance company’s attorney was requesting proof of a proper service, he also addressed a claim made by the complainant of a “kill switch.”
While discussing the situation with the opposing attorney he eventually got the contempt charge dropped since he was able to prove proper service was not given. The opposing attorney would not drop the original claim against the finance company for using the “kill switch” even after the finance attorney provided the signed disclosure forms by the consumer on the starter interrupt device. The forms disclosed the consumer’s ability to call either the finance company or a 24-hour emergency number to have the vehicle started at any time. However, the opposing attorney would not budge and claimed that the signatures were not enough to prove “proper disclosure.”
The attorney for the finance company advised the finance company to settle on the amount requested since it would be difficult to prove the consumer was disclosed properly two years ago. Once the finance manager heard those words “difficult to prove proper disclosure” he told the attorney about SecureClose. The finance manager contacted SecureClose and requested a copy of the audio and video closing record. Nineteen minutes into the closing video the SecureClose Avatar reviewed the disclosure on the starter interrupt, specifically a section on what to do when you need to have your car turned back on after the interrupt is used. They sent the audio video closing record to their attorney and within minutes of receiving the video, the attorney called the finance manager back.
In short, the attorney sent the opposing counsel the evidence of “proper disclosure”, from three years earlier and the opposing attorney lowered the amount of the original suit. The attorney advised them to accept, due to the vehicle being shut off by mistake and the cost to defend and go to court would be more than the settlement at that time.
Another victory for SecureClose.
