iStockphoto
An Ohio woman had her car repossessed by a Kia dealer just one month after she purchased it. So to get back at the dealer, she took legal ownership of the dealership’s name in a epic bit of petty revenge.
The woman, Tiah McCreary, reportedly received preliminary approval for a loan to purchase a used 2022 Kia K5 at Taylor Kia of Lima. A month after taking the car, the lender determined that she should not have received approval because “available information regarding McCreary’s income was not sufficient to substantiate a loan in the requested amount” and the car was repossessed while she was at work.
Never take a Kia from Tiah
It was at that point that McCreary began looking for legal options against the dealership when she reportedly discovered that the dealership’s name, “Taylor Kia of Lima,” had not been renewed with the Ohio Secretary of State. So she registered it in her name. Then she filed a cease-and-desist order against the dealership demanding that they stop using the name, which the business has used since 2012.
According to court documents, McCreary filed a complaint against the dealership’s parent company Taylor Automotive Group and the lender, accusing them of fraud. She also requested an injunction from the court to stop the dealership from using the business name that she now owned.
CBS 12 News reports that while the judge in the case threw out her fraud claim because of an arbitration clause in the agreement she had signed to purchase the car. The judge also did not issue the injunction.
So now what?
McCreary continued her legal battle by taking the case to the Third District appeals court. While agreeing with that the arbitration clause was valid, the appeals court refused to dismiss her ownership of the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” because it had nothing to do with the purchase agreement. Her case is now headed back to lower courts.
“This claim is a separate matter that could be pursued independently of the other claims in the complaint that address the consumer transaction at issue. Since this claim does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, this claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration,” the appeals court wrote.