Join Our Telegram Channel


Lakewood resident Larry Loigman, who alleges he was rushed into financing a new vehicle purchase with the assurance that he was receiving "the best possible rate" is fighting back after learning that the "great rate" he was given is not actually a great rate.

The financing company is now seeking to dismiss the suit, which was originally filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Ocean County but has been transferred to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

As previously reported here on FAA News, the lawsuit was filed by Larry Loigman, a resident of Lakewood and an attorney with an office in Middletown, on behalf of himself.

According to the complaint:

On March 7, 2023, Mr. Loigman purchased a new 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EUV automobile, from Pine Belt Enterprises, Inc., an authorized Chevrolet retailer located on Route 88 in Lakewood.

Pine Belt offers customers assistance with financing new vehicles. For this service, Pine Belt is an agent of Ally Financial, a Michigan-based financing firm.

Mr. Loigman specifically asked the Pine Belt representatives to "locate the best possible financing for a portion of the vehicle cost." They assured him that the best financing was available through Ally Financial at an annual percentage rate of 8.59%.

The retailer then insisted that the transaction be completed as soon as possible and led Mr. Loigman into signing a “Retail Installment Sale Contract, Simple Finance Charge."

The Contract includes the an assignment, in the following terms: “Seller assigns its interest in this contract to Ally Financial (Assignee) under the terms of Seller’s agreement(s) with Assignee. Assigned without recourse."

At the time of the sale, because the retailer insisted that the transaction be completed as soon as possible, Mr. Loigman did not have an opportunity to research other financing options. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, he learned that the financing provided by Ally Financial, through its agent, Pine Belt, was not at a commercially reasonable rate, or at the best rate.

On March 23, 2023, after receiving promotional materials from Ally Financial which stated “we want to make your experience with us simple and hassle-free,” Mr. Loigman telephoned the offices of Ally Financial and spoke to a supervisor. The supervisor insisted that the company, although the holder of the note, could not modify the terms of same. The supervisor also refused to transfer Mr. Loigman to speak to another person in authority at the company.

In response, Mr. Loigman filed legal action seeking a judgement of $20,000 plus filing fees because he "has suffered, and will continue to suffer, actual losses as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct."

Mr. Loigman's lawsuit also alleges that Ally Financial engages in consumer fraud, and regularly designs its business to cheat, deceive, defraud and mislead retail consumers.

"By way of example and not by way of limitation, Ally had and has an undisclosed, secret or concealed ongoing business relationship with Pine Belt whereby Ally provides rewards, incentives or other payments to Pine Belt, for steering business to it; Ally engaged and engages in business practices whereby it directs, instructs or encourages retailers, including Pine Belt, to conceal or misrepresent information to consumers, and to withhold information about more favorable loan terms offered by its competitors; Ally, although the apparent holder in due course of the note, denied and denies that it has the authority to modify the terms thereof; Ally denied and denies access to its assignment agreement with Pine Belt.

"Ally, through its agent, broker or authorized representative, failed to provide the clear and conspicuous disclosures required to consumers in a credit transaction, as mandated by both federal and New Jersey law, such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Plain Language Review Act," the Complaint concludes.

The Complaint names as defendants only Ally Financial, and not Pine Belt.

Back in May, New York Attorney Joseph M. DeFazio representing Ally Financial moved the case from the New Jersey Superior Court to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Mr. DeFazio wrote to the court that while the case purports to arise under New Jersey statutes or common law, the case actually arises under federal law because the plaintiff alleges violations of various federal statutes and regulations, and pursuant to federal law the case properly belongs in federal court.

Ally Financial has now submitted a motion seeking to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

The motion states:

Plaintiff’s complaint is woefully deficient, and his claims cannot be sustained.

In wholly conclusory fashion, Plaintiff asserts several state law and federal claims against Ally for an allegedly unreasonable interest rate on his installment contract related to a 2023 Chevy Bolt (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff appears to simply have
buyer’s remorse, which is not an actionable claim. Absent from Plaintiff’s Complaint are any well-pleaded specific factual allegations to support his claims. Each of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to meet the required pleading standard.

Plaintiff purchased a new vehicle from Pine Belt Enterprises. He alleges that he asked Pine to locate the best financing for the Vehicle and that Pine
assured him the best financing was through Ally at an annual rate of 8.59%.

Plaintiff also admits that he did not have an opportunity to do his own research for other financing options before willingly entering into the
Retail Installment Contract (“RISC”), which was later assigned to Ally.


Plaintiff alleges he later learned that the financing provided was not at a commercial reasonable rate or at the best rate but is silent as to how or why that rate was not commercially reasonably.

After already entering into the installment contract with Pine, Plaintiff alleges that on March 23, 2023, he made his first contact with Ally regarding the RISC. Plaintiff alleges that he spoke to a representative of Ally named “Carl” and alleges that Carl stated he could not modify the terms of the RISC.

Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff, alleges a legal conclusion, not rooted in law or fact, that the dealer was acting as the agent of Ally. However, the mere fact that Pine directed consumers to Ally to obtain loans to finance the purchase of the Vehicle is insufficient as a matter of law. Further, integral
to the Complaint is the RISC between Ally and Pine, which is specified and identified in the Complaint and forms the basis of Plaintiff’s allegations but does not create an agency relationship between Pine and Ally.

The remaining allegations of the Complaint are mere recitations of the elements of his claims without any special allegations of any conduct on the part of Ally to support his conclusions. Plaintiff only speculates of an “undisclosed” scheme or plan by Ally and Pine to conceal or misrepresent
information to consumers in exchange for Pine steering business in Ally’s direction, but does not allege any specific allegations or facts to support such conjecture. Plaintiff also alleges, without any basis to support an identifiable loss, damages of $20,000.

First, Plaintiff’s NJ Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) claim fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff does not plead with particularity the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud and cannot tie any action on the part of Ally to enter into the installment contract at the alleged unreasonable interest rate or to any identifiable loss. Plaintiff’s only allegations as to actions by Ally stem from conversations after Plaintiff already entered into the installment contract. Plaintiff haphazardly attempts to tie Ally’s actions to that of the dealer, Pine Belt Enterprises, by way of agency. However, Plaintiff’s reliance is misplaced, as Ally and Pine do not have an agency relationship based in law or fact.

Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations in the complaint and mere recitation of the elements are a far cry from the heightened pleading standard required to allege a NJCFA claim. Although the bulk of Plaintiff’s allegations are related to actions by
Pine, Plaintiff fails to name Pine as a party. Plaintiff is unable to plead facts demonstrating a violation of the NJCFA by Ally, and his Complaint is otherwise replete with conclusory allegations that cannot pass court muster on a motion.

Second, Plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claim utterly fails as Plaintiff does not specify which section of the FCRA Ally allegedly violated.


Assuming Plaintiff's FCRA claim is based upon his belief that Ally reported inaccurate credit information, that claim cannot be sustained as there is no private right of action. Even if Plaintiff is alleging an FCRA violation, Plaintiff does not allege Ally received notice of a dispute and has not pled that Ally failed to perform a reasonable investigation after receiving the required notice from the credit reporting agencies, nor that this failure was willful or negligent. These are required elements of a FCRA claim that Plaintiff cannot and does not allege. Therefore, Plaintiff’s FCRA claim must be dismissed.

Third, Plaintiff’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim likewise fails as a matter of law as Plaintiff merely gives short shrift to his TILA claim in an offhand mention in one sentence of the Complaint and fails to allege any fundamental element of the claim, particularly that he was misled, confused or deceived by any of the TILA disclosures contained in his installment contract. Plaintiff also does not
identify with requisite specificity any disclosures in the installment contract that violated TILA. Plaintiff only alleges that the interest rate under the installment contract was not commercially reasonable, but the Complaint is silent as to how or why. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s TILA claim must also be dismissed.

Fourth, Plaintiff’s NJ Plain Language Review Act claim is completely without merits as Plaintiff fails to plead what terms of his installment contract were not written in a simple, clear, and understandable manner. Plaintiff’s own allegations bely his claim, as he does not allege that any of the terms of the installment were not clear or understandable, only that he is unhappy with the interest rate received.

The motion is returnable before Judge Michael A. Shipp on Monday, August 7, 2023. Mr. Loigman has not yet responded to the motion.

The Pine Belt Family of Dealerships which has four dealerships in Lakewood, N.J., two in Toms River, NJ and one in Keyport, NJ, is a family-owned and operated New Jersey car dealer that offers new or pre-owned cars, trucks, and SUVs. Pine Belt Cars specializes in Cadillac, Chevy, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Nissan, RAM and Subaru cars.

The Family of Dealerships is very committed philanthropically to local communities. Some of Pine Belt’s philanthropic affiliations include sponsoring the Pine Belt Arena, Lakewood Little League, United Way of Ocean County, Lakewood Police Department, Jewish Federation, and the Monmouth-Ocean Development Council.

In 2008, a lawsuit case that went all the way to the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, revealed that Pine Belt has a vehicle loan agreement with the Lakewood Police Department in which the car dealer permits the Department to use their unregistered motor vehicles for undercover police investigations.

To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.

To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.

1 comment:

ab said...

Is there a case that Larry Loigman has ever won? And for someone who claims to be an intelligent attorney, this story proves he's not.