Robinson v. Point One Toyota, Evanston
984 N.E.2d 508
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Robinson and Kemp sued TMCC and River Oaks Toyota for CLA disclosures tied to lease terms.
- Leases from 1993-1995 were assigned to TMCC; prior appellate/supreme court history remanded for CLA issues.
- Court on remand granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on lease termination and itemization claims; denied on default provisions.
- District court addressed multiple CLA disclosures: default penalties, voluntary termination, and itemization of other charges.
- Trial court awarded Kemp statutory damages ($1,000) and actual damages; Robinson and Kemp joint damages were later vacated; attorney fees remanded.
- Appeals followed with cross-appeals challenging jurisdiction and various monetary/attorney-fee determinations.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do default provisions violate CLA/Regulation M disclosures? | Robinson/Kemp: default penalties are confusing/unduly complex. | TMCC/ River Oaks: provisions are clear; compliant with CLA/Regulation M. | No CLA/Regulation M violation; no reverse on summary judgment. |
| Are there statutory damages for each disclosure violation and nondisclosures? | Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for each violation. | Defendants argue damages limited by statute and case law. | Kemp awarded $1,000 statutory damages; joint damages for others vacated. |
| May TMCC raise a setoff for a settlement at trial? | Plaintiffs contest setoff timing/allowance. | Thornton v. Garcini allows setoff even if not plead. | Setoff permitted; argued to be timely and proper. |
| Did circuit court err in denying actual damages to plaintiffs? | Plaintiffs claim actual damages based on disclosure failures. | No proven damages beyond statutory; evidence insufficient. | Kemp entitled to $596 actual damages; joint damages vacated. |
| Was denial of discovery/depositions error; should attorney time records be disclosed? | Discovery denial prejudiced proving damages; time records relevant. | Forfeiture rules/appellate standards apply; not meritorious. | Issue forfeited; rulings affirmed on remaining issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundquist v. Security Pacific Automotive Financial Services Corp., 993 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1993) (disclosures can be clear but complex; not per se violative of CLA)
- Channell v. Citicorp National Services, Inc., 89 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 1996) (clear/conspicuous disclosure may name method; operation need not be simple)
- Jordan v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 236 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirmed Channell; explanations don’t violate CLA if named method is clear)
- Jordan v. Schaumburg Toyota, No. 97 C 6697 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (N.D. Ill. 1999) (held that itemization may be unnecessary if method disclosed in periodic payments)
- Clement v. American Honda Finance Corp., 145 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Conn. 2001) (distinguishable; early termination disclosures may violate CLA)
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (2011) (jurisdiction to amend judgments; clerical errors vs. judicial errors)
- Scandia Books, Inc., 102 Ill. App. 3d 292 (1981) (amendment of judgment during pending appeal; revestment concepts)