A Kia dealership and a (former) customer are entangled in a dispute that started as a questionable repo and has sprawled into a pretty bizarre situation. The customer was able to register the business name of the dealership for herself, then turned around and sent the store a cease and desist.
I got wind of this story on Automotive News, and was able to dig into it a little more with info from Court News Ohio and the court’s official documentation on the case itself. I also dropped a note to the lawyers on both sides of the disagreement, but haven’t heard back—we may revisit this strange saga later if they end up adding insight.
As it’s being reported, Tiah McCreary bought a 2022 Kia K5 at Taylor Kia of Lima, Ohio, last February. She got a note through Global Lending Services, which “provided preliminary approval to McCreary,” but weeks later decided the “available information regarding McCreary’s income was not sufficient to substantiate a loan in the requested amount,” per court documents. The dealership repoed the car on March 29, 2024.
I won’t speculate on what exactly might have happened here, but obviously it’s a bad look for the dealer and lender. Though I’m sure they’re not happy about it, either—after all, the only time they want cars coming back after a sale is for service appointments.
Anyway, the next action is where the story gets interesting. In researching her legal recourse, McCreary reportedly discovered that “Taylor Kia of Lima,” the name the dealership is doing business as, was up for grabs. Turns out the Taylor Automotive Group, parent company of the Lima Kia store and other dealerships, including Hyundai and Cadillac, had forgotten to submit a renewal application to the state. The Ohio Secretary of State had canceled its registration of the name “Taylor kia of Lima.”
McCreary then registered “Taylor Kia of Lima” herself and sent the company a cease and desist letter since, technically, the name is hers now.
In June, McCreary filed a complaint against the dealership’s parent company and the lender in Allen County Common Pleas Court, alleging fraud. But she also went for an injunction to stop the dealer from doing business under the Taylor Kia of Lima without her consent after claiming it.
Initially, the court dismissed the case so it could go to arbitration because of an arbitration agreement in the financing documents McCreary signed. It’s not uncommon for a company to have such a clause in a sales doc, because if there are issues like this, it’s usually cheaper and faster to settle a dispute privately than in court (that’s pretty much what “arbitration” means in this context).
However, McCreary appealed, and the appeals court sent the issue back up the chain because of the business name aspect. “Since this claim [the use of the name “Taylor Kia of Lima”] does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration,” the Third District court wrote.
McCreary v Taylor Cadillac, Inc.Download
So that’s where it stands now—the dealer has McCreary’s car, McCreary has the dealer’s name, and Ohio courts have yet to determine how it shakes out. It’ll be interesting to see what happens—I don’t think there’s ever been a case of a customer seeking restitution for a repossession quite like this before.
Know about any other unusual customers-versus-dealer cases? I’d like to hear about them! Drop me a line at [email protected].
Comments