Automobile Fraud: 3.8.2 DPPA Allows DMV to Release Names and Addresses in Selected Circumstances
A careful reading of the DPPA indicates that an attorney should be able to obtain identifying information when tracing a car’s title.
A careful reading of the DPPA indicates that an attorney should be able to obtain identifying information when tracing a car’s title.
In general, the DPPA allows a DMV to release names of car owners in certain situations, but does not require DMVs to do so. One significant exception is that the DPPA requires DMVs to provide prior owner information “for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft.”155 The United States Supreme Court has made this very point: “For example, the DPPA requires disclosure of personal information. . . .”156
In many instances information about drivers and vehicles may be obtained, individually or in bulk, not from the DMV but from other sources, who derive the information from accident reports, traffic tickets, or other records that may be viewed as not being “motor vehicle records.” While the DPPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the obtaining, disclosing, or use of personal information from motor vehicle records, it does not prohibit release of the same personal information from other sources.158 Some courts have found that the sale or relea
The DPPA has been challenged on a number of constitutional grounds, most notably based on the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has resolved the Tenth Amendment issue, finding the Act within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and that Congress did not run afoul of federalism principles in passing the statute.160
The DPPA is patterned after a California statute.163 As with the federal statute, the California statute creates certain exceptions when title information is allowed to be released.164 One is when an attorney states under penalty of perjury that the information is necessary to represent a client in a civil action involving use of the motor vehicle, and that action is pending, filed, or being investigated.165 Other states have also enacted laws regu
This section focuses on consumer remedies when the dealer transfers good title to the consumer, but the transfer was made in a manner to further a fraudulent sale. A separate issue is what remedies are available to a consumer when the dealer fails to deliver good title to a vehicle, and the consumer never obtains rightful ownership. Such remedies are explored elsewhere in this treatise168 and in another NCLC treatise.169
Much of this chapter has discussed requirements under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (also known as the federal odometer act) and its implementing regulations.170 Violations of federal titling requirements analyzed in this chapter should lead to a private federal cause of action under the Act for treble damages, $10,000 minimum damages,171 and attorney fees.
The Seventh and Ninth Circuits as well as some other courts have found that MVICSA violations and the intent to defraud must directly relate to odometer fraud.175 A more thoughtful approach taken by other courts interpreting the current version of MVICSA finds MVICSA violations actionable even when the violation and the intent to defraud do not directly relate to odometer fraud.176 As the Eleventh Circuit has stated:
Some older cases dismiss MVICSA claims unless they pertain to odometer tampering or erroneous mileage disclosures.181 But these cases were decided before extensive changes were made to MVICSA that added the requirement that the disclosures be made on the certificate of title.182 It is now an essential part of the federal approach to stopping odometer fraud that disclosures be made on the title, and attempts to evade this requirement interfere with that enforcement plan.
As long as the requisite intent to defraud is shown,184 a MVICSA claim is thus available for any violation relating to:
Because of the split in courts on the issue of whether intent to defraud must relate the vehicle’s mileage, rather than using a broader standard of intent to defraud, it is prudent to also add UDAP or common law fraud claims to the MVICSA claim. As will be described below a MVICSA violation, even without intent to defraud, may be a UDAP violation, and a scheme involving an intent to defraud should meet the elements of common law fraud.190
State motor vehicle title statutes frequently do not provide a private right of action for damages,192 but they often provide that a transfer not complying with the title requirements is void.193 In addition, state law frequently voids a sale when a dealer provides the consumer with temporary tags, but does not produce the certificate of title within a set number of days.194 Another remedy that may be available is revocation of the dealer’s license
A violation of a federal or state law meant to protect the public should be a per se UDAP violation.196 Thus in many states a MVICSA violation or a violation of a state title requirement should be an automatic UDAP violation that can lead to a claim for multiple, punitive, or statutory damages and attorney fees. Intent, scienter, and perhaps even reliance need not be proven.
Common law claims for punitive damages in motor vehicle cases are examined in Chapter 8, infra. This subsection merely points out that violation of title requirements can often be an integral part of a common law fraud claim for punitive damages.
Placing false information on a title is securities fraud. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that titles are securities and that false information placed in a title violates federal criminal statutes that regulate falsely made or forged securities.203 Consequently title fraud may involve securities fraud under federal or state law, which may provide a private right of action.
When evaluating the legality of an extra charge, advocates should keep certain principles in mind. First, the failure to pay a legally imposed extra charge may not justify an eviction for nonpayment of rent, but could constitute grounds for an eviction as a violation of a material term of the lease. Second, any mandatory charge for a housing service or use of the housing unit must be included in rent and cannot be charged as an additional amount above any statutory rent maximum. Third, the charges must be rational and reasonably related to the tenancy.
Section 8, public housing, Section 236 Rental Assistance Payment and Rent Supplement tenants are charged rent based upon their income. Tenant rent cannot exceed the statutory levels.101 PHAs and project owners faced with increasing costs and sometimes inadequate subsidies often look for ways to collect extra revenues from tenants.
For public housing tenants, issues arise regarding whether certain equipment or appurtenances, such as stoves or refrigerators, are part of the equipment to be supplied by the PHA. If they are supplied by the PHA, the cost for these appliances should be covered by the rent. One court has determined that stoves are provided at the option of the PHA.106 However, PHAs usually supply stoves.
Some public housing tenants are required to perform certain maintenance on their units or surrounding areas, if such a practice is required of tenants in private housing of similar design and construction in the community and if the area is designated for the tenant’s exclusive use.118 Often, PHAs that require such work surcharge tenants for their failure to perform.
A PHA or project owner must include in the rent any charges for non-essential items if the tenant has no option to accept or reject the service or equipment. Tenants in a Section 23 leased housing project in Hawaii successfully challenged the imposition of a mandatory $15 charge for furniture rental. The court found that
One of the most common extra charges that tenants face is the late fee. Lease agreements often contain late fee provisions requiring the tenant to pay a given amount for the tardy payment of rent. Late fees usually take the form of either a flat charge (regardless of the length of the delinquency) or a specific amount for each day that the rent is overdue.
Public housing and subsidized housing leases contain a provision permitting the assessment of usually unspecified repair or damage charges.149 The amount of the charge is often found in a schedule that is incorporated by reference into the lease.
The public housing regulations do not expressly permit a PHA to levy charges for a tenant’s violation of house rules or failure to carry out normal maintenance duties.
Some PHAs and project owners routinely charge tenants attorneys’ fees or other legal costs resulting from the commencement of legal action (usually an eviction) against the tenant.171 Federal regulations expressly prohibit lease provisions that require the tenant to pay legal fees or costs incurred by the project owner or PHA in an action to enforce the lease regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action.172 This prohibition has been interpreted by one HUD Area Office to preclude the char
As discussed in greater detail in supra § 3.2.3, Congress enacted two statutes permitting certain federal housing tenants, including all public housing tenants and other federally subsidized tenants in developments designated for the elderly or people with disabilities, to own common household pets.179 PHAs and owners may charge a refundable