Smith v. AFS Acceptance, LLC
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2012 WL 1969415 (2012)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Rosalind Smith (plaintiff) borrowed money from AFS Acceptance, LLC (AFS) (defendant). The loan was secured by Smith’s vehicle. Smith failed to make loan payments, and AFS hired Equitable Services, Inc. (Equitable) (defendant) to repossess Smith’s vehicle. Smith parked in her mother’s driveway while visiting. Rashai Jackson (plaintiff), Smith’s daughter, was with Smith. During the visit, Equitable’s representatives began to hook the vehicle up to a tow truck. Jackson noticed this, and the family went outside to see what was happening. The representatives stated that they were repossessing the vehicle. Jackson got into the vehicle and left the door open. However, the representatives continued to proceed with the repossession and raised the vehicle. Smith began yelling for the representatives to stop while her daughter was in the car. The representatives did not stop, and Smith also got in the vehicle. The representatives continued the process and began to tow the vehicle onto the street. Meanwhile, other members of Smith’s family and neighbors yelled at the representatives to stop while the two women were in the vehicle with the door open. The police were called. The police told the representatives to stop towing the vehicle and to return the vehicle to the driveway. The representatives then complied. Smith and Jackson sued AFS and Equitable for: violating the repossession statute, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. AFS and Equitable moved to dismiss the claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bucklo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.