On August 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant auto finance company in a borrower’s suit alleging nondisclosure and collection misconduct after the borrower bought a truck under a retail installment contract and later stopped paying. The borrower asserted claims under TILA, the FDCPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as breach of contract, unjust enrichment and claims under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act.

The court held that the TILA claim was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that equitable tolling or the continuing violation doctrine applied. The court also found that the contract clearly and conspicuously disclosed the APR, amount financed, and finance charge. The court held that the FDCPA claim failed because the company was collecting its own debt and received assignment of the contract before default, and held that the TCPA claim failed because the borrower expressly consented in the contract to calls using prerecorded or artificial voice messages and automatic dialing. The court also affirmed judgment on the breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and New Mexico Unfair Practices Act claims, concluding that the retail installment contract authorized the challenged insurance, default, repossession and fee-related conduct and that the borrower did not show evidence the company misled him.