Car Lease Disclosures and Signatures

[proletariatcsp]

My jurisdiction is: Pinellas County, Florida

Because we have not been able to obtain legal representation and must now pursue this case ourselves, any help would greatly improve our situation. I have three questions, please.


1st Question. I believe our vehicle lease agreement contains three copies. A top white page, a yellow carbon copy, and a pink carbon copy.

Our copy is the yellow copy. On it, is the lessee's signature, but the signature space provided for the lessor's signature is blank. The dealer or it's salesperson did not sign the lease.

We requested a copy of the lease from our bank to compare to our copy. The bank's copy of the lease has "both" signatures; the lessee and the signature of a person that was not present during the sale. No one signed the lessor/seller space at the time of sale.

Is the lease agreement valid if the lessors signature is missing?

2nd Question. On the face of the lease agreement: The "Agreed Upon Value" is significantly higher than the "Sticker" price of the vehicle. It was explained by the dealer that negative equity from the trade-in "may" have been added to the selling price of the new vehicle.

Part 213--Consumer Leasing Act (Reg. M). Section 213.4--Content of Disclosures: 4(f)(1) Gross Capitalized Cost. 1. Agreed upon value of the vehicle. "Charges for [. . .] outstanding balance on a prior lease [. . .] are not included in the agreed upon value."

The MSRP plus, the dealer installed options, equals the "Sticker Price" $35,770. The "Agreed Upon Value" on the face of the lease clearly shows $39,033. The increase does not include GAP, Acquisition, or Warranty fees. Those fees are added to $39,033 bringing the total to $41,253. And all other fees were paid via $4,100 cash down-payment. The increase to the Agreed Upon Value is clearly from negative equity.

Is the obvious difference noted on the face of the lease a violation of Reg.M, Sec.--213.4?

3rd Question. In Florida, a dealer must disclose a consumer's rights under the Lemon Law. We found the Lemon Law disclosure booklet neatly tucked away among other booklets for "Onstar and Xm Radio" in the glove compartment. On the face of the Lemon Law booklet it clearly states that signatures obtained from both, the seller and the buyer, in the spaces provided will show that proper disclosure of the lemon law was performed. Both signature spaces on that booklet are blank.

Florida Lemon Law 681.103--Duty of Manufacturer to conform a motor vehicle to the warranty. (3) "The manufacturer shall provide to the dealer and, at the time of acquisition, the dealer shall provide to the consumer a written statement that explains the consumer's rights under this chapter. [. . .] The consumer's signed acknowledgment of receipt of materials required under this subsection shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance by the manufacturer and dealer."

Because we were not informed of the Lemon Law rights period, we unknowingly forfeit our rights and were not able to seek relief when the dealer and manufacturer failed to repair our vehicle. Although our situation met the rule for "3 or more repair attempts within 24 months" we were rejected by the BBB. The BBB of central FL, did not care that we were not properly informed of our rights as prescribed by the statute.

Are we still entitled to a fair and actionable claim considering the dealer's noncompliance with disclosing our rights under the statute?

I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration of my lengthy questions.

Chris P. of FL.

 

[dee_dub]

You realize, of course, that these answers are given without knowing all the circumstances and are speculative.

Is the lease agreement valid if the lessors signature is missing?

It might be. One of the copies has both signatures. Perhaps the agreement contemplates that it can be signed in counterpart. Do these purport to be carbon copies? If so, there is a serious discrepancy to be explained about how one has a signature and the other's don't.

Is the obvious difference noted on the face of the lease a violation of Reg.M, Sec.--213.4?

I can't say, I'm not familiar with that statute.

Are we still entitled to a fair and actionable claim considering the dealer's noncompliance with disclosing our rights under the statute?

First, it's not clear whether the dealer didn't comply with the requirement to disclose your rights. They didn't get your signature on the book; but that doesn't necessarily mean they breached their duty. I would hazard a guess that getting your signature on the book is one of the ways they could prove they DID discharge their duty. The absence of that signature just means they might have to get more creative in showing they complied.

Second, if they did fail to comply, it's not clear what the consequences of that are. Maybe you don't get an extended return period; maybe you get some other remedy. Again, I'm not familiar with this statute, so I can't say.

 

[proletariatcsp]

dee_dub thank you for sharing your thoughts.

It might be. One of the copies has both signatures. Perhaps the agreement contemplates that it can be signed in counterpart. Do these purport to be carbon copies? If so, there is a serious discrepancy to be explained about how one has a signature and the other's don't.

After a lengthy discussion with the bank this evening, I learned that the lease was signed by a representative of the bank after they received it from the dealership. I have never heard of such a thing.

The good news is, the agent did discover at least one dollar amount that had not been disclosed in the contract, and the price the bank paid the dealer was not what the dealer charged us. Hopefully, more will be explained when I speak with the bank again.

I can't say, I'm not familiar with that statute.

According to Reg.M, I have the banking agent looking into that matter. I raised the question and the agent could not compute the figures in order to explain the increase. As of now, no one can say what caused the price to increase, but Reg.M clearly states that negative equity is not added to the agreed upon value.

The absence of that signature just means they might have to get more creative in showing they complied.

The book itself says that the signatures of both lessor and lessee must be acquired. The statute reaffirms this claim. There is no mention of Lemon Law rights in any other document, and of course, no mention of any certified mail requirement in the owners manual. We followed the steps in the owners manual while seeking relief. But because we were unaware of the certified written notice requirement under the lemon law, we just continued having the vehicle repaired over and over again for the same defects during the last four years.

During the lemon law period, there were three repair attempts on three seperate defects. That is, three times the severity of nonconformity needed to file a claim under breach of warranty. The minimum is 3 repairs on the same defect.

Thank you again for offering your thoughts on this.

Chris.