Are Password Managers Safe to Use in Michigan?
A federal jury found in favor of Tina McPherson and against Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC after determining that the dealership engaged in deceptive “yo-yo financing” tactics and impermissibly accessed Ms. McPherson’s credit report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The jury awarded Ms. McPherson $383,000.00, including $38,000.00 in actual damages and $350,000.00 in punitive damages. Following the verdict, the total recovery exceeded $800,000.00 after the addition of attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and other amounts awarded by the court.
Evidence at trial showed that the dealership accepted more than $2,000.00 in down payments and fees before later claiming there were problems with the financing and pressuring Ms. McPherson to surrender her vehicle.
Learn more about this case here or here.
An Indiana jury found in favor of the consumer in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against debt collector Hunter Warfield, Inc. The jury determined that the company improperly reported a landlord’s claimed apartment damages to the consumer reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The jury awarded $1,950,000.00 in damages, including $200,000.00 in actual damages and $1,750,000.00 in punitive damages.
The case involved false credit reporting relating to disputed apartment-related charges that were reported by a debt collector despite significant issues concerning the validity and accuracy of the claimed debt.
Learn more about this case here or here.
An Indiana jury found Absolute Recovery Investments, LLC liable for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act after the company improperly reported alleged credit card debt that had already been determined not to be owed. Prior to the false reporting, the consumer had secured a judgment establishing that no debt was actually due. The jury awarded a total of $2,145,000.00 in damages, including $1,825,000.00 in punitive damages.
The evidence presented at trial showed that the debt collector continued reporting the account despite the existence of a court judgment confirming that the alleged debt was invalid.
November 5, 2024
Chief Judge Holly A. Brady ruled in favor of Angela Buell in her case against Trans Union LLC. The court entered a judgment awarding Ms. Buell $25,000.00, inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees, with post-judgment interest at a rate of 4.28% per annum. The judgment was issued following Ms. Buell’s acceptance of an Offer of Judgment from Trans Union LLC.
If credit reporting agencies have misrepresented your credit history or failed to correct errors, you have rights under the law. Call Lyngklip & Associates today at (888) 400-CREDIT | (888) 400-2733 for a free consultation.
November 15, 2024
In a second amended judgment, Chief Judge Holly A. Brady ruled in favor of Angela Buell against Equifax Information Services LLC. The court awarded Ms. Buell $20,000.00, which includes costs and attorneys’ fees, along with post-judgment interest at a rate of 4.28% per annum. The ruling followed Ms. Buell’s acceptance of an Offer of Judgment from Equifax.
If Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion have damaged your credit with false reporting, you may have a legal claim. Call Lyngklip & Associates today at (888) 400-CREDIT | (888) 400-2733 for expert legal assistance.
On July 31, 2024, Judge David Lawson rejected efforts by Suburban Ann Arbor to overturn the jury verdict of $388,000 in favor of Tina McPherson. Suburban Ann Arbor had argued that the jury’s $350,000 punitive damage award was excessive and should be reduced. In denying Suburban Ann Arbor’s request, Judge Lawson called the misconduct illegal and deceitful:
“Although some of the reprehensibility factors are not present in this case, the proofs sufficiently support a conclusion that several of the factors — not merely one — weigh in favor of a finding that fiscal punishment is justified for the defendant’s admittedly unlawful, deliberate, and deceitful misconduct.“
If a car dealer has told you that your “financing fell through” or “you need to sign new paperwork” because of problems with the financing, call Lyngklip & Associates today. We understand Spot Delivery and YoYo Scams and we can help. (888) 400- CREDIT | (888) 400-2733.
April 2020
On April 15, 2020, Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that an identity theft victim is not required to take her case to arbitration if she did not sign the arbitration agreement. Sharee Garry brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that Credit Acceptance Corporation had damaged her credit when it posted information about a fraudulent car purchase on her credit reports. In her complaint, Ms. Garry claimed that her identity had been stolen to purchase a car and she had not signed any of the necessary papers to buy the car.
Even though Ms. Garry claimed that she had not executed any of the credit documents, Credit Acceptance Corporation asked the court to enforce the arbitration clause in the credit contract at issue. Credit Acceptance Claimed that Ms. Garry’s allegations were not credible, even though she claimed to live in another state and was at work in Tennessee at the time the car was purchased in Detroit.
The court denied Credit Acceptance Corporation’s request and ruled that Ms. Garry was not bound by the agreement if she did not sign it, and ordered the case to be tried immediately on the issue of whether Ms. Garry actually signed the credit agreement. You can see a copy of the order here.
TAKE AWAY: If you are an identity theft victim, you are not bound by arbitration agreements that would require you to present your claims to an abitrator who has been hand picked by the company stole your identity and ruined your credit. Call today if you need help with your identity theft. (248) 208-8864.
© 2026 Lyngklip & Associates, Consumer Law Group, PLC. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising.
