Garcia v. Dezba Asset Recovery, Inc. and Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

Christopher Garcia (plaintiff) financed a vehicle purchase through Capital One Auto Finance Inc. (Capital One) (defendant), agreeing to make 72 monthly payments of $525.26. The contract contained a no-oral-modification clause requiring all changes to be in writing. After falling behind on payments, Garcia contacted Capital One. A representative informed him that he qualified for a temporary-payment-reduction plan (TPRP). Capital One later emailed Garcia confirming that he could enroll in the TPRP by signing and returning an agreement letter and by making a $262.63 good-faith payment by January 16, 2022. Garcia made the payment on January 14 but never received or signed the referenced agreement letter. On February 7, around 2:30 a.m., Dezba Asset Recovery Inc. (Dezba) (defendant), acting on Capital One’s behalf, attempted to repossess Garcia’s vehicle. Garcia confronted the tow-truck driver and verbally objected. Dezba nonetheless repossessed the vehicle. Garcia sued Capital One and Dezba (collectively, the creditors), asserting violations of federal and state law, including unlawful repossession. Specifically, Garcia claimed the repossession was unlawful because the creditors (1) lacked a present right to possession and (2) breached the peace. The creditors moved to dismiss, arguing that they had a present right to possession because Garcia remained in default as the TPRP was not validly formed or enforceable under the contract’s no-oral-modification clause. They also asserted that a verbal objection alone was insufficient to establish a breach of the peace.