'I Feel Robbed': Clients Await Compensation From Santander's $550 Million Settlement With States
"The interest is more than the principal," one borrower said. "I want to get out of the contract."
June 23, 2020 at 03:52 PM
4 minute read
Lakeland, Florida, resident Megan Moon had trouble qualifying for a vehicle loan before she became a client of Dallas-based Santander Consumer USA Inc., the nation's largest subprime auto financing company.
But that joy turned to despair after the company repossessed her truck for nonpayment.
And now Moon is among thousands of borrowers who say the company misled them with financing they couldn't afford. They're now awaiting compensation after Santander reached a $550 million settlement with Connecticut and 33 other states to reimburse consumers for alleged deceptive loan practices nationwide.
|'Up to Santander'
Moon said she called the Florida Attorney General's Office Tuesday for an update, but staff there urged her to be persistent with follow-ups to the company. She said she called the state after Santander employees told her, "This is all very new to us and we will be in touch."
While California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and 29 other states reached the settlement, it falls on Santander to administer the agreement.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said his office has fielded calls from about 60 residents since the settlement was reached in May. He urged Santander customers to visit www.santandermultistateagsettlement.com, or call 1-800-253-2171. If they have significant problems and feel like they've been mistreated, they can then call the attorney general in their state.
|Read more: Santander Reaches $550 Million Settlement With 34 States Over Alleged Deceptive Auto Loan Practices
"We don't have the money, or the ability to provide restitution," Tong said. "That is up to Santander, according to the terms of the agreement."
In a statement Tuesday, Santander referred all comment to its May 19 announcement on the settlement. It declined to comment further.
"Santander Consumer's voluntary agreement with the attorneys general resolves a legacy underwriting issue stemming from an investigation that commenced in 2014, and is another key milestone in addressing issues related to that time period," the company said in the May statement. "We are pleased to put this matter behind us."
|'They gave me the keys'
Meanwhile, Moon's story is similar to thousands across the country who dealt with Santander. She said she purchased a used 2009 F150 truck, and was thrilled when Santander signed off on a loan.
"I was very surprised since I was denied by a lot of creditors," Moon said Tuesday. "They gave me a 20% interest rate. You usually have to show proof of income and they'd call your place of employment. I don't even think they called my job to verify I had a job."
Moon continued: "They wanted $2,200 down and I gave it to them, and they gave me the keys. I tried to be responsible and tried to rebuild my credit, but that wasn't the case. I couldn't make ends meet half the time as I was also a full-time college student. Payments were $360 a month and, as a single mom, it was often hard to make the payments."
Moon said she relayed her concerns to the company, but claimed it was to no avail.
"They wouldn't work with me, and I was going deeper and deeper into debt," she said. "I stopped making payments in November."
Then, Moon said, the company repossessed the vehicle on June 17, after she'd repaid about $7,500 over two and a half years.
"I feel kind of robbed," she said. "I am flexible in that I'd like either the money or the car. I am trying to show a good-faith effort."
|Interest higher than principal?
Patricia Perez, a Marietta, Georgia, resident, had a similar situation.
Perez purchased a used 2016 Jeep Patriot. She agreed to repay $36,504—or $507 a month for 72 months—after 23% interest.
"The interest is more than the principal," she said. "I want to get out of the contract. I feel like I was taken advantage of."
The agreement between Santander and the states requires the company to adhere to certain provisions, including knowing a customer's ability to repay the loans. It also prohibits Santander from lending to consumers who will have little or no money left after paying for housing and other expenses.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250