Who is Affected?
If SB832 or HB 2089 passes working class consumers in Missouri will be effectively shut out of courtrooms in Missouri. Below are the stories of average Missourians who have relied upon the MMPA for protection against unlawful practices.
Marine Corps Veteran and Golden Gloves boxing champ, sold scam warranty from dealership, then sued by debt buyer
Brian Cook is a Marine Corps veteran. He is a Golden Gloves boxing champ. Grew up in STL and has lived in Columbia for many years now. He is a pillar of the community. He teaches kids boxing and devotes time to youth in many, many ways.
On June 3, 2006, Brian had the misfortune of buying a 2000 Jeep Cherokee from Columbia Car Classics. The contract was then assigned to Fireside Bank, who financed the deal. Columbia Car Classics was a notorious outfit and the owner ultimately went to federal prison for fraud. Not the fraud it perpetuated against regular people but fraud against the banks that financed its inventory, which is typical for the government – more concerned with protecting banks than people.
Brian’s car was stolen and wrecked, totaled. Brian had his insurance, which paid for the market value of the Jeep, and he was also charged for GAP insurance, which was supposed to cover the difference. Well, in this cast of characters, Fireside Bank went out of business after receiving at least one insurance check on Brian’s wrecked car. But, just before closing its doors, Fireside sold its accounts to Cavalry Investments, a “debt buyer.”
Cavalry then sued Brian on August 10, 2012, claiming he owed $453.11 on the car. Brian decided to hire and attorney to fight back against Cavalry. The attorney fought to get basic deal documents and lo and behold, once he did, they found out Brian was charged $1,700 for a service contract company with a company called SafeData. In Brian’s deal, this added $1700 to a $13,000 deal at 12% APR.
Once the attorney got the service contract, he discovered that the fine print required consumers to write to the company and request a bottle of fluid. Then, have the company send the customer the bottle of fluid. Then, take the bottle of fluid to a mechanic. Then, have the mechanic “install” the fluid by pouring it into the engine. Then, obtain a receipt from the mechanic. Then, mail the receipt to the service contract company and have them acknowledge receipt of the receipt. Only then would the “benefits’ be “activated.”
Of course, no one did this because no one knew to do so. This scam was fairly prevalent in the early 2000s and it is known as an “additive contract.” The MO AG and Dept. of Insurance actually sued some companies who sold these bogus products but none of the consumers ever got relief. Brian was willing to step up and be a class representative for other Missourians who were charged for this bogus product. Judge Oxenhandler granted class cert on August 26, 2015 and after much additional litigation, the attorney were able to settle with Cavalry, returning $600 to each consumer who was charged for this b.s. and wiping out these purported “debts.” If SB 832 were law, Brian wouldn’t have been able to bring his claim under the MPA.
Single mother and grandmother purchased a used Subaru, turned out to be previously wrecked, improperly repaired, in need of significant repairs and no title upon the sale.
Erica Knoll, from Archie, MO, was a single mom with an infant when her old car was breaking down and she needed a new one. She asked her grandma for help and together they went to Car Mart LLC in Clay County, MO. They were sold a Subaru that they were told was mechanically flawless. In fact, the Subaru had been previously wrecked, improperly repaired, and needed extensive further repairs. On top of the deceptions about the condition of the car, Car Mart never gave Erica the title to the car, so she never legally owned it, couldn’t register it, couldn’t legally drive it and couldn’t sell it. Erica returned the car to Car Mart and begged for assistance, but they took the car, and kept her money.
Erica sued the dealership under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 or HB 2089 were to become law, Erica would have no recourse.
Eric Stronsnider, of O’Fallon, is the owner of a car dealership in St. Peters, MO. Eric as a Missouri consumer, is currently in litigation against a Marina in Camden County. Eric purchased a boat at the Marina, and on the same day of purchase the engine went out in the boat. The salesman inadvertently sent him a service invoice, which was dated prior to the sale and proves the marina knew about the engine problem before it closed the sale.
Eric understands that SB 832 and HB 2089 would make it harder for people to sue him or his dealership, but he has stated that it’s more important to be able to hold those accountable who commit fraud against consumers in Missouri.
Eric’s own case again the marina would not have been possible if SB 832 or HB 2089 were the law.
Family’s home destroyed by gas explosion, hires contractor to rebuild the home, contractor only has foundation poured and takes off with all the money, after the bank sets up false escrow account.
A family’s home was destroyed by a gas explosion and they hired a contractor to build a replacement. They hired a contractor, but were worried about giving the entire sum to the contractor at once, before work was done. Therefore, they opened what they were told was an Escrow Account at a large national bank, which bank was suggested by the contractor as having experience with these types of accounts. They were told by the bank that the contractor cannot get the money without their express consent. They deposited the full amount into the bank account. The only work completed on the site was that a subcontractor poured a foundation, leaving a large, unsafe, and unsightly hole in the ground. Instead of an actual Escrow Account, the bank opened a regular checking account that it titled “Escrow Account” on all documents. The contractor completely emptied the bank account without the client’s permission and did not pay the subcontractor. The foundation company wanted to get paid for its work, so it asserted a lien, and, the family’s insurance company wouldn’t release any more money to them. The family was left with no home, no money and nowhere to turn.
After hiring a Missouri Consumer Attorney, the family sued under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The same attorney also helped another family with a similar situation involving the same bank, same contractor and same results.
These cases would not have been possible if SB 832 or HB 2089 were the law.
After selling her an unusable car, woman makes deal with dealer that they will “unwind” the deal, she makes good on her part, dealer fails to carry out its promises.
A woman, who resides in Missouri, bought a used car that turned out to have significant problems, rendering it unusable. She could reach an agreement to return the car to the dealer, who agreed to pay off the loan balance, return her down payment, and, rescind the sale to the Department of Revenue so that the sales tax she paid would be refunded to her. As agreed, the lady returned the car, but the dealer refused to do anything it had agreed to do, leaving her without a car, without money to buy a new one, and with damaged credit, through no fault of her own.
The woman hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney who filed a case using the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 or HB 2089 were to be passed cases like hers would not be possible.
Couple told they must pay $1000 fully refundable deposit to be able to test drive car, after the test drive dealership refuses to return the funds.
A Missouri couple went to a car dealer to buy a car. They were told that before they could test-drive it, they were required to put down a $1,000 deposit that will be fully refunded if they decide not to buy the car. They decide not to buy the car and the dealer refused to refund any of the deposit. The couple had no choice but to seek an attorney to obtain a refund of the deposit.
After hiring a Missouri Consumer Attorney, the couple filed suit against the dealership under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 or HB 2089 were passed this case would not be possible.
Family led to believe they were in fact purchasing a home, not renting it, only to be evicted when they fell slightly behind on payments.
A Missouri Family “bought” a home under a “contract for deed” and were told repeatedly by the “sellers” that they then “owned” the home and were building equity in it, among other things. They were told that it was just like any other purchase of a home and they were not renting it (and were making higher monthly payments than renting it would have cost). When the family got slightly behind on payments, the “seller” sought to evict them. However, the sellers failed to tell the Family that under a contract for deed, such a transaction comes with serious risks to the “buyer”; among them that they would not have any equity in the house until it is fully paid off, and, that if they ever got late on a payment, they could be evicted and lose all the money they had paid towards the house. The Family was never told of these risks and certainly did not understand them.
The Family contacted a Missouri Consumer Attorney who filed a case under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
This Family would not have had a case under SB 832 or HB 2089.
Mother of two subjected to continued legal prosecution by landlord, even though rent was paid in full and judgment was awarded in her favor.
Darnisha Crocket, who lives in Kansas City with her two children, was leasing an apartment when she got a few days behind on the rent. She knew she was late, but paid the rent plus the late fee before her landlord, CJ Real Estate, took her to trial to evict her. When she explained to the Judge that she’d already paid the late rent plus the late fees, the Judge granted Judgment in her favor. They sued her again, trying once again to evict her, claiming falsely that she owed more fees. She didn’t, but she couldn’t figure out why they said she owed more. She found a lawyer to help her beat the second case, and had to pay out of pocket to win the second case. When Darnisha moved out at the end of her lease, CJ Real Estate wrongly kept a portion of her security deposit.
Darnisha found a Missouri Consumer lawyer, and sued under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB832 or HB 2089 were the law, Darnisha may not have had recourse.
Army Vet and Wife unknowingly purchased an automobile service contract for $995, maximum payout on contract is $500.
Ken Hudson, a veteran Paratrooper with the United States Army, and his wife, Christina, residents of Hartsburg, bought a vehicle from Car Barn. Car Barn arranged the financing and assigned it to Westlake Financial Services. Later, there was a dispute between the Hudson’s and Westlake over whether they had fallen behind on payments and Westlake repossessed the vehicle, damaging it in the process. Westlake filed suit against the Hudson’s claiming they still owed $9,610. The Hudson’s hired an attorney to defend them against the suit and through documents turned over in the case the attorneys learned that the Hudson’s were sold a service contract for $995, but the contract only had a term of 3 months, 3,000 miles and would only pay a maximum liability of $500. Ken and Christina have become class representatives, forgoing all other possible claims, and are representing over 1000 other Missourians who were sold this rip-off service contract.
Ken and Christina are using the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in their case to pursue claims not only for themselves, but for all similarly affected Missourians.
Their case would not be possible if SB 832 or HB 2089 were to become law.
Finance Company sues yet another consumer for defaulting on a loan, knowing that the consumer never received title.
Helen Hatcher, resident of Jackson County, MO, bought a car from a dealership who arranged for her to be financed through Santander. The dealership never assigned the title over to Ms. Hatcher. Ms. Hatcher was unable to legally register the car, but continued to pay Santander for over two years, feeling as though she had no choice. Once Ms. Hatcher did stop paying for a car which she did not own, Santander carried out an aggressive campaign against her, repeatedly calling her and her employer, her neighbors and her relatives. Santander made negative reports to Ms. Hatcher’s credit reports and eventually filed suit against her for breach of contract.
Ms. Hatcher hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney to fight Santander’s claims and using the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act they reached a settlement.
Under SB 832 and HB 2089, Ms. Hatcher would not have had a case against the finance company.
Mortgage Co fails to endorse payment check twice, charges consumer thousands of dollars in fees and forecloses on his home.
In 2008 Steve King refinanced his home with SunTrust, based on representation’s that they would be able to lower his monthly payments. In addition to increasing his principal by $5,295, his monthly payments also increased by almost $400 per month. In March 2015 King lost his job and fell behind on his mortgage payments. He then developed a medical condition that caused him to spend some time in the hospital, forcing him to miss time from his new job. On July 24, 2015, he received a foreclosure notice from Southlaw saying that SunTrust had elected to accelerate the debt, and advising him that a foreclosure sale had been set for Sep. 1, 2015. King was later advised that the reinstatement amount was $13,546.13, due by Aug. 31. King took out a loan from his bank to reinstate the mortgage, he delivered a cashier’s check for the full amount to Southlaw on August 31, 2015. On September 15 SunTrust reverse the credit and initiated foreclosure proceedings, citing that the cashier’s check was rejected. When King’s bank pulled the check image it was clear that the check was presented to the bank and each time it was rejected to SunTrust due to “ENDORSEMENT MISSING”. While King did hire an attorney, SunTrust added an additional $3,163.86 in fees that King was unable to pay, and the home was foreclosed.
King filed suit under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
King’s case would not be possible under SB 832 or HB 2089.
A real-estate agent, located near Kansas City, Missouri, failed to disclose environmental contamination resulting from a pipeline rupture that released thousands of gallons of gasoline. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources knew homes were being built on contaminated lots but also did nothing to protect the homeowners.
A Missouri Consumer Attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit on behalf of homeowners.
Their claims would not be possible if SB832 or HB 2089 becomes law.
Couple traded in their car for a newer car, dealership never paid off the trade in balance, kept the money and closed the business.
Shannon and Christopher Leslie live in Greenwood, MO. In August, 2015, they bought a car from All Cars LLC in Raytown, MO. They traded in their old car to help pay for the purchase, and because the old car still had a loan on it, All Cars promised to pay off that old loan in the deal for the new car. But All Cars broke its promise, kept the trade-in car, kept the money, and closed its doors forever. Stuck with a loan payment on the new car and a loan payment on the old car that All Cars was supposed to pay off, the Lesile’s felt helpless.
The Leslie’s found a Missouri Consumer lawyer and sued under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act.
The Leslie’s would have no path to remedy if SB832 or HB 2089 were the law.
Woman purchased “guaranteed energy saving windows” with 50-year warranty. 4 years and 13 service calls later, she has black mold, stucco problems and damage to the wood frame of her home.
In 2007, Cecilia Tapia, a single mom and caretaker of her elderly father, hired Rolox Home Improvements to install retrofitted windows for $10,200.00. Rolox advertised the windows as being far superior to those of the competition. Rolox said the windows were weatherproof, provided greater energy savings and efficiency, and they came with a 50-year transferrable manufacturer’s warranty. Within a few months of installation, the windows began having problems with air infiltration, water leakage, staining of the walls and woodwork, and damage to the stucco on the exterior of the house. Over the next four years, Rolox made at least 13 service calls to the residence, but never fixed the problems with the windows. The continued problems caused an estimated $30,000 to $35,000 in water damage to Ms. Tapia’s residence, including causing black mold, causing the stucco to peel, and causing damage to the wood frame of the house. Rolox ultimately refused to replace the windows and refused to continue making service calls.
Ms. Tapia hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney and filed a lawsuit under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Ms. Tapia’s case would not be possible if SB 832 or HB 2089 were passed.
Deck company, after building faulty deck, states their warranty is already up because it started the day the contract was signed, not the date the construction began or ended.
An Eastern Missouri family wanted a deck built on the back of their house. They contracted with a company to build it. The deck had a 1-year warranty which, per the buried fine print, started to run when the contract was signed, not when the deck was built. It was several months before the deck was started and even longer before it was completed. An inspection of the deck revealed that it was built incorrectly and the seller refused to fix it under warranty.
The Family hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney to file a case under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Under SB 832 or HB 2089 this case would not be possible and similar families would have no recourse.
Blue Springs Apartment Complex charges renter misleading “Obamacare Surtax” falsely claiming it was a legal tax charge.
Russ Wilson, a resident of Blue Springs, MO, was perplexed by a reoccurring charge on his monthly rent, labelled as “Obamacare Surtax”. Russ went as far as to call 80 other apartment complexes around the metro to see if anyone else charged such a tax, they did not. Russ asked the owners of his apartment to explain the tax and he was told it’s a real tax, go look it up. Russ contacted Fox 4 Problem Solvers to help him, and they also confirmed there is no such thing as an Obamacare Surtax. When the TV station visited the apartment complex, the owner still insisted it was perfectly legal. Since the apartment complex holds 84-units, and had been charging the tax since 2013, it was possibly the owners had collected nearly $40,000 in total from this fraudulent charge. At the time of the show the owners refused to refund any of the collected “tax”, leaving the renters no choice but to contact an attorney.
A Missouri Consumer Attorney filed a case under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 or HB 2089 were this case would not have been possible.
Elderly widow first deals with shoddy work by contractor, then is drained of entire savings after Insurance Company fails her.
An elderly widow, residing in Missouri, files a routine insurance claim for hail damage. The insurance company sends an out-of-town contractor to her home to conduct the repairs. The contractor fails to complete the job and his work is shoddy. The insurance company instructs the widow not to pay him and to return the insurance company’s check. She does so. The widow begins receiving debt collection letters from the contractor. The insurance company tells her not to worry because it is handling the matter. But it doesn’t. The contractor sues her. The insurance company tells the widow – who is now in the hospital for surgery – not to worry; the insurance company will handle the case. But it doesn’t. The widow receives a letter in the mail saying her bank account has been garnished and her entire savings – all the money she has – is gone.
The widow hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney, who represented her on a case utilizing the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Under SB 832 and HB 2089, the widow would have been left with no money and no recourse.
A young father, living in Western Missouri, visited a local car dealership to purchase a car. Unbeknownst to him, the dealership was unable to secure financing on the spot. Instead of making this information known to the father, the dealer instead lies and states that the deal has been financed. The dealer has the consumer sign a contract, make the down payment and drive away in the car. A week after the sale the car dealer repossess the vehicle and keeps the young father’s down payment, leaving the man unable to get to work and unable to purchase another vehicle.
A Missouri Consumer Attorney filed a case on the behalf of the father under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 of HB 2089 were to be the law, this father would have no recourse.
A Missouri customer purchases a vehicle from a dealer but the dealer does not provide the title. Under Missouri state law, the sale is void and no money is due but few consumers know this. Without the title, the customer cannot register the car and cannot legally drive it. He tries and tries to get the title from the dealer to no avail. The dealer is later charged with multiple felonies for defrauding his customers. The company that financed the deal tells the customer he must pay even though he has no title, a clear misrepresentation. Under pressure, the customer continues to make payments. He drives the car as little as possible but cannot afford to pay for it and buy a new one. When he must drive, he takes backroads, must find off-street parking, and constantly looks in the rear-view mirror, afraid he will be pulled over and his car will be impounded. Finally, he gives the car back to the finance company. The finance company, knowing that the dealer has defrauded the customer, sues the customer – not the dealer – for money the customer does not owe on a car he never even owned. The customer is forced to hire an attorney to defend this lawsuit, to recoup his money and fix any false reporting.
After hiring a Missouri Consumer Attorney, a case is filed using the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
SB 832 and HB 2089 would leave this consumer unable to hold the companies responsible.
Dealer sells Single Mom previously wrecked vehicle with frame damage, attorney discovers she’s not the only victim.
A used car dealer failed to disclose three prior accidents and major frame damage in selling a dangerous car to a single mother. The car was so dangerous that an expert told her the car was unsafe and she should not drive the car. The Missouri Department of Revenue, the state agency that “regulates” used car dealers won’t help consumers who are cheated by used car dealers. The mother was stuck was a vehicle that could not be driven and dealer who refused to correct the situation.
The mother hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit. The case quickly settled when it was discovered that the used car dealer had sold many unsafe cars over the years.
Her claims would not be possible if SB832 or HB 2089 becomes law.
Workman started fire in Woman’s rental home, destroying most of her household goods, refuses to pay for damages.
A workman started a fire when installing a telephone line in single mother’s rental home. Most of her household goods were damaged or destroyed and she was forced to live a cheap motel for six weeks, which was far from her children’s school. Her kids were considered homeless by their school and they were driven by taxi 45 minutes each way to school every day. When those responsible for starting the fire absolutely refused to do anything to help her, the mother turned to a Missouri Consumer Attorney.
Through the attorney the mother filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit.
Her claims would not be possible if SB832 or HB 2089 becomes law.
Senior citizen duped by a “free car” flier then forced to wait in the sun for almost 9 hours before “purchasing” a car she did not want because the dealership refused to return her old car.
An elderly woman who resides in Missouri received a flier from a large car dealership which told her that she had won a free car. She called the number on the flier, and was again told that she had won a free car. When she arrived at the dealership, she was forced to wait for three hours in the sun because the dealership’s computer system was down. The dealership then took her old car from her and then told her she had not actually won a car and subsequently tried to sell her a different vehicle. As she did not have her old car, she could not leave. After a total of 8 or 9 hours in the sun without any food or water, confused and wanting to go home, she finally gave in to the unrelenting pressure and agreed to buy the car. The dealer then forced her to drive home—in the new car and with a salesperson with her—to collect several thousand dollars in cash to pay for the new car. When she returned to the dealership, she was forced to sign a stack of documents without reading them. The next day, she realized what was happening and immediately attempted to get out of the sale. She has since returned the car, but is still receiving collection letters from the bank, and the dealership refuses to return her money.
She has retained a Missouri Consumer Attorney who is representing her in a case utilizing the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Under SB 832 or HB 2089, she would be left with no recourse and with no money, and would likely be forced to pay the bank for a car which she no longer owns, and never wanted.
Remodeling Company pours concrete pad so badly, expert states “it’s the worst” he has ever seen, Company still refuses to fix the work.
A Missouri homeowner hired a home remodeling company to pour a concrete pad. The remodeling company did a terrible job pouring a concrete pad causing damage to the home. An expert in the field said it was the worst he had ever seen and would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fix. When the company responsible refused to fix its bad work, a consumer attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit. A settlement allowed the homeowner to repair his home and replace the concrete pad.
This case would not be possible if SB832 is allowed to become the law.
Finance Company claims they have document proving consumers have title to vehicle, but dealer has been sued several times for not giving consumers their titles and floor planner is in possession of the title.
In 2012 Robert and Brittney Carter, who live in Kansas City, purchased a used car from MTS Auto Mall. The Carter’s never received the title, and after having no luck with the dealership the Carter’s complained to the finance company, Credit Acceptance Corporation. Credit Acceptance Corporation stated they must continue to pay on the car, even without having a title to the vehicle. The Carter’s continued to pay for 10 months on a car they did not legally own. They eventually sought the help of a Missouri Consumer Attorney who proceeded to file suit against MTS Auto Mall and Credit Acceptance Corp. During litigation Credit Acceptance Corp made statements to the Carter’s attorney that they were in possession of a document that the Carter’s had signed stating they received the title. In fact, the Carter’s were correct, the floor planner had the title all along, the only thing the Carter’s ever saw was a paper copy of the title, not the actual title. The Carter’s were not aware, but MTS Auto Mall had failed to deliver the title to many consumers over the years, and Credit Acceptance Corporation had previously been a co-defendant with MTS Auto Mall on at least one of those cases.
The attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act case against the dealership and finance company.
If SB 832 or HB 2089 were passed people like the Carter’s would not have access to these remedies.
Single Mother, who did not miss a payment, has her car repossessed and towed by a different finance company.
A single mother, who resides in Kansas City, Missouri, purchased a used vehicle in 2015. She financed that car through Credit Acceptance Corporation. A short two months later, her vehicle was repossessed by a different company—Santander Consumer USA, despite the fact that this single mother had not financed her vehicle through Santander and despite the fact that she had not missed a single payment. For a week, she was not able to go to work and was not able to take her daughter to school without assistance because Santander and the tow truck company refused to release her vehicle to her.
It was not until she hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney that she was finally able to get her car back.
Under SB 832 of HB 2089, this mother could not have taken this action.
A mortgage broker forged a homeowner’s signature and refinanced his home loan without his knowledge.
A consumer attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit and a Judge awarded him actual and punitive damages following a trial. The Judge’s decision was upheld when the mortgage broker appealed the verdict against him.
This homeowner’s claims would not be possible if SB832 becomes law.
Doug and Seul Clements are a married couple, who purchased a car from a dealership in Raytown, Missouri. Unfortunately, the car dealership never gave them the Certificate of Title. This meant that they were unable to register the car, and therefore could not legally drive the car. This also meant that they were unable to sell the car to recoup their loss.
Doug and Seul hired a Missouri Consumer Attorney to represent them in a case utilizing the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
If SB 832 of HB 2089 were the law, Doug and Seul would not have had claim and would have been left with a car they could not register, drive, or sell, and without the money they spent purchasing that car.
Former public servant purchased a car from a dealership that refused to give her the Certificate of Title.
A.R. is a middle-aged woman who used to intern for a state representative in Missouri. She purchased a car from a dealership who never provided her with the Certificate of Title. As such she could not register, drive, or sell that vehicle. When she sued the dealership and finance company, they each hired large multi-state law firms.
She could hire a Missouri Consumer Attorney to help her by utilizing the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Under SB 832 and HB 2089, she would not have any recourse, and would have been left to pay off a loan on a vehicle which she would never be able to register, drive, or sell.
Consumer buys truck, finds out frame has extensive rust, shouldn’t be driven, dealer says no refund.
A used car dealer failed to disclose frame damage on a used pickup truck. The truck’s frame was so severely rusted it wasn’t even safe to put it on a car lift let alone drive. Despite knowingly selling a dangerous truck without a safety inspection the used car dealer refused to allow the consumer to return the truck for a refund.
The case quickly settled after a consumer attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit.
This case would not be possible if SB832 becomes law.
Siding Installer and Siding Manufacturer refuse to correct problems with fault siding installation on Missouri home.
A siding installation company refused to fix its bad work and the manufacturer refused the homeowner’s warranty claims because of the bad work.
A Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit was filed after the installer refused to do anything about it. The settlement allowed the homeowner to fix his house.
This homeowner would have no case if SB832 of HB 2089 becomes law.
Newlywed’s hire moving company, driver crashes into bridge damaging all their possessions and is arrested on the scene for outstanding warrants, yet company says they aren’t paying for damages.
A young newlywed couple hired a moving company to move then into their first home together located in Missouri. The driver of the moving company drove its moving truck along with all their earthly belongings into a bridge overpass damaging or destroying all their things. Following the crash, the driver was arrested on outstanding warrants. The moving company refused to pay for any of the damage it caused.
The couple sought the advice of a Missouri Consumer Attorney who filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit.
If SB 832 of HB 2089 were passed this young couple would have no case.
A used car dealer in Eastern Missouri, sold a young woman a mid-sized SUV with hidden wreck damage and without a rear shock absorber. The dealer had fraudulently obtained a passing safety inspection.
A Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit was filed to stop this dealer from selling unsafe cars.
This case would not be filed if SB832 or HB 2089 becomes law.
After being rear ended, mom discovers dealer never took out the GAP insurance policy, pocketing her money instead.
A used car dealer simply pocketed the money a single mother paid for GAP insurance and never took out the policy. When she was rear-ended years later she discovered she had no GAP policy and now owed the bank thousands of dollars she didn’t have.
A Missouri Consumer Attorney filed a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit.
This mother’s case would not be possible if SB832 or HB 2089 becomes law.