Under The Hood Of A Subprime Lender Accused Of Illegally Repoing Soldiers' Cars

Tyler Durden's picture

Santander Consumer — a unit of one of only two banks to receive the dubious honor of failing the Fed’s stress tests yesterday and the market leader in subprime auto lending — allegedly ignored a law that requires lenders to obtain a court order before repossessing cars from members of the military and will now pay $9.35 million to settle the issue with the government. Apparently, Santander illegally repoed nearly 800 vehicles from active service members over the course of 5 years and then attempted to extract fees from some 350 additional soldiers in connection with repossessions the bank didn’t even execute. 

From the NY Times:

The law, called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, recognizes that military members have to upend their lives, often at a moment’s notice, sometimes leaving their finances in peril. By requiring lenders to first obtain a court order, the law provides service members with a chance to delay or contest repossessions.


But Santander Consumer, prosecutors said, failed to get those court orders, leaving service members, including some who were deployed thousands of miles away, to fight at home and abroad. Prosecutors said that the lender’s repossessions stretched over roughly five years, from January 2008 until February 2013. Santander, prosecutors said, completed 760 repossessions against service members protected under the relief act.


The case, filed in Federal District Court in Dallas, also accused Santander of going after an additional 352 service members for fees that stemmed from illegal repossessions started by other lenders.

This is the same Santander Consumer that was subpoenaed last year by the Justice Department in connection with its packaging of subprime auto loans into ABS and whose lending practices also got the attention of the New York Dept. of Consumer Affairs. 

Don’t think for a second that any of this is slowing down the Santander Consumer subprime auto securitization machine though. The company, which leads all other lenders when it comes to the total amount of subprime auto loan debt outstanding, has already done a deal this year worth $1.2 billion which accounts for nearly 25% of all subprime auto ABS issuance YTD. The details of that deal are below — note the average FICO score of 595, the average term of 70 months, the average APR of nearly 17%, and the breakdown which shows that more than two thirds of the loans were for used cars.

Santander Consumer is the market leader… 

Details of the $1.25 billion SDART 2015-1 deal…

The prospectus for this deal has all sorts of fun language regarding risks and also includes a handy table showing average FICOs, loan terms, etc. for the company’s previous securitizations.

From the SDART 2015-1 prospectus

Substantially all of the receivables in the receivables pool are subprime receivables with obligors who do not qualify for conventional motor vehicle financing as a result of, among other things, a lack of or adverse credit history, low income levels and/or the inability to provide adequate down payments. While each originator’s underwriting guidelines were designed to establish that, notwithstanding such factors, the obligor would be a reasonable credit risk, the receivables pool will nonetheless experience higher default rates than a portfolio of obligations of prime obligors. In the event of such defaults, generally, the most practical alternative is repossession of the financed vehicle. As a result, losses on the receivables are anticipated from repossessions and foreclosure sales that do not yield sufficient proceeds to repay the receivables in full.


Since July 2014, SCUSA has received civil subpoenas and civil investigative demands from various federal and state agencies, including from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and several state attorneys general, requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the origination, underwriting and securitization of auto loans for varying time periods since 2007. 

Finally, here are 60-day delinquency rates by vintage, which pretty clearly show that most of these issues have a date with double-digits sooner or later…

Not wanting to waste any time getting back to market, Santander is now prepping a deep subprime deal called DRIVE 2015-A, which looks even worse than previous offerings and is 13% backed by loans to borrowers with no credit score whatsoever. 

Via Structured Finance News

The $712 million DRIVE 2015-A is backed by a pool of loans with an average FICO of 552 (12.9% of borrowers in the pool don’t even have a FICO) compared with 595 for the most recent SDART transaction, completed in February. The loans backing


DRIVE 2015-A pay, on average, an annual percentage rate of 19.16%, approximately 3.0 percentage points higher than the February SDART transaction.

DRIVE 2015-A is also backed by loans with slightly longer terms that average 5.8 years compared to the 5.5 year terms in the latest SDART pool. Approximately 5.22% were more than 61 days delinquent, as of December 31, 2014.


Nevertheless, both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service have assigned a preliminary ‘AAA’ rating to two senior tranches that benefit from initial overcollateralization and subordination of 64.5%.


DRIVE  2015-A marks a return to the deep subprime space for Santander, which last issued a deal backed by deep subprime borrowers in 2008...


Since the collateral in DRIVE is much weaker than previous subprime transactions sponsored by the issuer, Moody’s expected loss for the pool is 27%, or approximately 10% higher than for transactions issued under the SDART platform.


The recent spate of regulatory probes into subprime auto lending and securitization hasn’t really impacted appetite for these higher yielding loans. Issuers have maintained a regular calendar of issuance since the Department of Justice first initiated investigations into subprime auto financing targeting GM Financial and Santander, in August 2014. Since then, another six issuers have been targeted by investigation led by the DOJ and the CFPB.

*  *  *

We would reiterate here that all of the above serves to validate what we’ve been saying for months now about the subprime auto market specifically and about surging US auto sales more generally. At the margin, growth is being fueled by loans to risky borrowers and lenders are encouraged to make these loans by a Wall Street securitization machine that is just now starting to heat up again after taking a well-deserved post-crisis rest. The only question now is whether regulatory action aimed at tightening lending standards is just around the corner and whether the recent move by Wells Fargo to cap loans to underqualified borrowers serves as a model for other lenders to curb lending in the subprime space. 

Charts: Deutsche Bank

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Xibalba's picture

Paying the Justice Dept.  NOT the victims....The scheme continues







joego1's picture

Like Mexico, just pay the cop and be on your way to the next hiest.

Xibalba's picture

The 'Justice Dept' let's them settle without admission of guilt only keep civil lawsuits at bay.  There's zero interest in justice, or righting of a wrong, at 'Justice'...zero  

LetThemEatRand's picture

In most states, a lawyer seeking service of process must certify that the person being sued is not in active military service.  These soldiers should sue the lawyers who signed the suit papers and effected service.

kaiserhoff's picture

It's amazing that Justice has time for this, when Holder is busy trying to start a race war in St. Louis.

Maybe next they could take a look at pay day loans, at up to 1200% annualized interest.

LetThemEatRand's picture

The Just Us department has time for this because it makes for favorable headlines "helping" soldiers, just as it has seemingly unlimited time to deal with the day-to-day operations of a single suburb of St. Louis.   The masses don't much give a shit about pay day loans, and those who do don't tend to vote.

El Vaquero's picture

I know a retired Marine who had his car illegally repoed right after he got back from a deployment.  The repo man got arrested, and it turned out that he wasn't even behind on his payments.  The experience prompted him to go to law school to become a consumer attorney.  Santander is that bad.  


As for the securitization, I bet that if you get the pooling and servicing agreement, it states that ownership of receivables automatically revert from the master trust back to Santander, yet all proceeds from any lawsuits or repos goes back to the master trust so that investors can get paid.  In other words, Santander does not have the real financial interests if it takes any legal action.  In various states, this would mean that Santander is controlling litigation where somebody else is the real party interest.  Multiple states have ruled that similar schemes are a case of unauthorized practice of law.  This has not been tested on securitization, but there are multiple instances where a debt was not just assigned to a debt collection firm, but ownership of the debt in question was signed over to the debt collection firm, which then sued, and gave more than half of the recovered FRNs back to the original creditor.  I would love to wind up with either identity theft or a case of mistaken identity getting me sued by a junk debt buyer that securitizes its junk debt just so that I could have a crack at this.  It would have far ranging implications.  

LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't mean to argue with you, but real party in interest just means the party who owns the debt.  They can have whatever side agreement they want, so long as they own the paper.  For example, I can buy a debt from you for $1, and agree to pay you 100% of any collection in exchange for the dollar.  I own the debt even though the party who really gives a fuck about it is someone else.

EDIT: make that "agree to pay you 99% of any collection."  Maybe 100% would be deemed facial fraud as I think about it.

El Vaquero's picture

A lot of states consider the party that is getting the bulk of the money to be the real party of interest, no matter what the paper says about who owns it.  




When collection efforts short of litigation fail, the Credit Bureau then so informs the creditor, advises him that legal action will be necessary and procures from the creditor an assignment of the claim for the purpose of allowing the Credit Bureauto file suit in its own name. No monetary consideration is paid for this assignment and the contingency fee relationship remains the same. The Credit Bureau does not advise creditor-assignors that they may seek an attorney of their choice. TheCredit Bureau does not introduce a creditor-assignor to the attorney for the CreditBureau for the purpose of establishing an attorney-client relationship between the assignor and the Credit Bureau's attorneys. The decision that a lawsuit is the only remaining method available for collection of a claim is made solely by the CreditBureau, not its attorneys. The Credit Bureau, acting without its attorneys, controls the entire litigation in magistrate court in some cases.


We entertain no doubt as to the correctness of the portion of the judgment which grants injunctive relief. The same or similar questions have been considered in a number of other jurisdictions. Oft cited cases are Nelson v. Smith, 107 Utah 382, 154 P.2d 634 (1944) and Bump v. Barnett, 235 Iowa 308, 16 N.W.2d 579 (1944). The Nelson court held that an assignee is the real party in interest even though the assignment is only for the purpose of suit. But the court went on to state:

"* * * this holding is not determinative of this point. Before one may proceed in the courts to prosecute a claim in which another has a beneficial interest it must be determined whether or not the assignment was made to accomplish an illegal purpose. Section 6-0-24 prohibits the practice of law by laymen. The courts themselves will not permit laymen to appear in court in a representative capacity. The policy of the courts and the legislature in this regard may not be circumvented by the subterfuge of a layman taking an assignment to permit him to carry on the business of practicing law.

"The casual assignment for procedural convenience falls in an entirely different class. See comment in Graustein v. Barry, 315 Mass. 518, 53 N.E.2d 568. The casual assignment does not constitute a business of collecting claims for others. Rather such assignments are made for procedural and administrative convenience and permit groups of persons collectively to pursue a similar or common right. There may well be legitimate purposes for the taking of an assignment by one engaged in the business of collecting claims for others. But collection agencies as a part of their business of serving others, clearly should not be permitted to prepare legal papers, commence suits, appear in court, prepare judgments and generally manage law suits for its various customers. * * * It does not matter what particular form or name they give their procedure the practice of furnishing or performing legal services for another is essentially the same.

"When the defendants solicit the placement of claims with them for collection, they are asking third parties to allow them to render the service of collecting 46*46 the claim. At that time the collection agency has absolutely no interest, either legal or beneficial, in the claim. The only interest they ever get comes by virtue of a promise to prosecute the claim. Courts cannot remain blind to the fact that the assignment of the claim to the defendants for collection is not made as a gratuity. The percentage of the amount collected which is allowed to the defendants is given to them for one purpose only; to compensate them for services rendered in the collection thereof. Where the collection practice involves the preparing of legal papers, furnishing legal advice and other legal services, the compensation allowed must be assumed to be in part allowed to pay for the legal services so rendered. No matter how one looks at it, this constitutes the rendering of legal services for others as a regular part of a business carried on for financial gain. This essential fact cannot be hidden by the subterfuge of an assignment. The assignment itself, if used to permit this practice, is for an illegal purpose and one proceeding under such an assignment is not protected by the constitutional provision giving one the right to appear for the purpose of prosecuting or defending a cause to which he is a party." (Citations omitted.)

The court further held that the collection agency's use of attorneys in some cases was not a vindicating circumstance:

"* * * it is clear that any attorney furnished to perform the legal services which the defendants agree, as a usual business practice, to perform or cause to be performed would be the employee of the defendants. There would, under these circumstances, be no contract or privity between the owners of the various claims and the attorneys furnished by the defendants. The fee allowed by the owners of the claims to compensate defendants for the services rendered are deducted by the defendants for their own use and benefit. The services so rendered are such as are usually and customarily rendered by an attorney in the practice of his profession. Under the allegations any attorney retained to perform such services in the enforcement of such claims would be the defendants' employee or agent. Such a business conducted for the purpose of bringing legal actions on claims owned by third parties and consisting of the payment of all costs and the furnishing of all legal services incident to the bringing of the actions is the practice of law. Where, as here, the agency rendering the service is a lay agency, it is the illegal practice of law. Such is the almost uniform holding of the authorities as applied to collection agencies operating along similar lines." (Citations omitted.) Nelson v. Smith, 107 Utah 391, 397, 154 P.2d 638, 641.

Bump v. Barnett, supra, dealt with a collection agency which solicited claims for collection, brought suit on the claims as assignee, and prepared and submitted the necessary legal instruments in some cases and retained a lawyer in others. The court's analysis was similar to that of the court in Nelson:

"The legality of assignments of choses in action with right of the assignee to litigate same in his own name, the right of a party to try his own case in any court and the fact that appearance by agent in justice court is permitted under our statute, are not questioned here. What is questioned is the right of defendant to hold himself out as one specially equipped to render services requiring special legal training and knowledge and the right to make a business of habitually rendering such services under the claimed protection of these propositions.

"Take first the right of assignment and of the assignee to bring action in his own name on the assigned chose. The Carson Pirie Scott case [Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Long, 222 Iowa 506, 268 N.W. 518 (1936)] fairly illustrates an exercise of these rights. It did not involve47*47 in any way a practice by plaintiff of soliciting claims for litigation or collection, of holding itself out as able to repossess property, or of contracting for the conduct of litigation. Plaintiff in that case was one of several creditors of the defendant. The claims of the others were assigned to plaintiff so all could be sued on in one action. It reveals a legitimate exercise of the statutory powers referred to above.

"Other examples could no doubt be imagined. Undoubtedly one might for example engage in the business of buying claims as investments and might take assignments of them to himself and maintain actions thereon in his own name. But when he does not purchase the claims and only takes colorable assignment of them so he may render or cause to be rendered legal service to others and holds himself out as engaged in such practice, it is a quite different matter. In one case he is dealing in property on his own account, in the other he is selling service and merely adopting the guise of an investor to conceal the real nature of his operations.

"And so with the right of a plaintiff to try his own lawsuit in any court. If it is really his own litigation the right is unquestioned and unquestionable. But if it is another's lawsuit or action, placed in plaintiff's name so as to enable him to render service to that other under the pretext of trying his own case, it does not come under the protection of the rule. And if it is done by one who engages in it as a business and holds himself out as peculiarly qualified or equipped, it comes under the ban of illegal practice of law.

"So likewise with the argument that because our statute, section 10526, Code 1939, provides that in justice court either party may appear `in person or by agent,' defendant is thereby permitted to engage in the practice regularly of representing clients in justice courts. The conclusion does not logically follow. The salutary purpose of the statute may not thus be perverted to encourage the growth of a class of `justice court lawyers,' unfettered by the rules that bind licensed attorneys and without training in law and ethics. Such rules are just as important in justice courts as in courts of record — more important, perhaps, because the justice of the peace is often one untrained in such matters — and certainly such safeguards are not less important by reason of the fact, if it be a fact, that justice courts are `poor men's courts.' The poor man is entitled to the same professional service as are more favored litigants." Bump v. Barnett, 235 Iowa 308, 312, 16 N.W.2d 579, 582.

hidingfromhelis's picture

MERS showed us just how much those minor details like "party" and "standing" matter.

El Vaquero's picture

Every state is going to be different.  FL is one of the worst for that kind of thing.  One of the things about these kinds of cases is that the bankers/JDBs/etc are preying on people who cannot afford attorneys.  I've been through the courts and I've been through the court records.  People think that banks get away with raping people because they own the government, and to a large extent, they are correct.  They are not wholly correct, however.  Most people don't fight when it comes to court because they are ashamed and they do not know how to fight.  I've sat in the courtroom when people admitted that they owed the debt, but they "tried to do the right thing," and got hosed.  I've also seen foreclosure cases where the defendants did have an attorney, and the attorney was a fucking retard.  I expect that is the norm.  What you need to understand is that all of what I saw was technically within the law.  What I have looked at is stuff that is not tabulated by anybody.  No news organization, no government organization, nobody. I don't think that even most of the judges see the picture, because the way it works, most judges see a case number, and that's about it.  There are only case numbers and default judgments, with the occasional stipulated judgment (the equivalent of a guilty plea if you're talking criminal law,)  They don't get to see the quality of the evidence in a majority of the cases, and indeed, they never get to even see the defendant in most cases.  Good judge or bad judge, he cannot do shit in our system if you don't do shit.  If the evidence is shit, the banks rely on the intimidation of going through the court system without an attorney, and that  is intimidating if you haven't done it before.  If the evidence is shit and you call them on it, they tuck tail and run, and it never comes before the court.  If you call them on it, you are in the minority of people. 

Even when our courts are functioning properly, they are the legal system, not the justice system.  Never forget that.  If you are thrown into it, understand that some states are worse than others, and that even the best follow rules that you probably do not understand unless you have been through it, and in order to get a fair shake, you have to know the law, the written rules that you probably don't know, and the uncodified rules. 


A lot of these things have never had a person really fight it to the end.  If a bank thinks that it is going to get its ass kicked, it either drops and runs, which the vast majority defendants will be happy with (I have very personal experience with this,) or, if it is going to wreck their business model, they invoke private contractual arbitration to get it out of the public realm if they cannot drop and run.  I have experience with that too.  This is ironic, because when a person is getting sued for <$10k, they can elect private arbitration, and most banks will whine and squeal due to the costs (they won't mention costs,) then cut their losses and run.  This is only for "agreements" that have private contractual arbitration with a service that costs a lot though, such as JAMS. 

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

I will put this under my Marines gone bad file. Actually - will cross file under taking an insult to the highest level file

Stoploss's picture

Santanders Motto:

Go fight and die some where for some body else's democracy, while we repo your car!

Harbanger's picture

This should be deducted from their bailout money so next time we'll give them less.

Bad Attitude's picture

Money penalties are not enough. The Santander executives and everybody down the management chain responsible for these illegal repos should be turned over to the tender mercies of ISIS. The resulting video of the shootings, involuntary immolations, and beheadings of the Santander personnel should then be shown in the board rooms of every sub-prime lender, explaining that will be their fate if they cheat our servicemen and women.

I have a son in the military that did two tours in Iraq. My son gave me power of attorney to handle his domestic matters while he was deployed. It was hell dealing with one of his creditors - HSBC. HSBC woudn't accept the power of attorney and I couldn't even give them the money owed to clear up the problem.

Forward (over the cliff)!

joego1's picture

We PTSD'ed some folks rides.

sam i am's picture

Unemployed impoverished American will make more soldiers willing to die for  minimum pay.

" Ukrainian/Russian Men Needed $19.19/Hr (Oceanside, CA)
GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) - We are military contractors working directly with the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.
Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.
This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.
At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on:
March 29-31, 2015.
The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.
Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40 hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary)...."

http:// orangecounty.craigslist.org /gov/4915002251.html




angel_of_joy's picture

I'd rather stay on welfare, thank you very much...

COSMOS's picture

Fucking amazing add, the mofos are training the troops for immersion, just like they did with Iraq before the operation desert storm same adds for Arabic speakers.  This shit is getting real.  These retards will get us all killed.

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

It would probably be cheaper and easier on everyone if we just flew the real Ukrainian combatants to the U.S. and had the real fight here - no role playing. Kind of like inviting them to have the game on our home field. If you win you stay.

Nah - where is the MIC profit in that.

DrNybble's picture

Let's get a couple things straight:
No soldier is willing to die - for ANY price.  It's not money that dictates that sacrifice.
And secondly, soldiers seldom GIVE their lives.  Life must be TAKEN.

sam i am's picture


Lady, the US military serve for free? $ Trillions of the US military budget goes to someone else's pockets, not to the military? Since the end of the WWII in 200+ wars the Americans took over 40,000,000 lives around the world.

"it's not money that dictates that sacrifice."? Show me one rich kid in the military, besides cokehead Biden Jr

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

Money may dictate the war but don't confuse that with the foot soldiers that get caught up in it. You quote Trillions of $$ - how much of that did the grunts get. Get a fuking clue

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Most of them do it because they need the money. Trust me. Ask some. It's one of the few jobs you can earn a middle class income with. Most aren't overseas getting shot at.

sam i am's picture


Girlfriend, I have relatives and friends who served in the militaries of Canada, USA, Russia, Soviet Union, and Israel.  If military would refuse to support bankers into destroying innocent nations, we would have peace by now.

kind regards

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

My problem is your generalization of 'military' would refuse ... This applies the same standard to the generals, military contractors etc that you apply to the ordinary soldier. There always have been and always will be soldiers. Whether they are deployed for good reasons or not is the lot of the decision makers. Separate the war from the warrior.

Harbanger's picture

Now the Repubs can fight back the Dems with a promise of Vet car loan forgiveness.

Lumberjack's picture

How much TARP and other program money went to spanish based Santander (or their cronies at the time?). Having seen MBNA et.al. work their majik, some splainin' needs to be done on Santander's sudden and massive appearance here in the good ole USA.

Sirius Wonderblast's picture

Lots, via a deal the Fed did with the ECB to prop them (ECB) up by swapping their junk for your good (ish) money.

heisenberg991's picture

They should have a SOCOM team take out the CEO. Total scuzzballs.

Colonel Klink's picture

Thieves don't like competition.  What?  You think government was actually out to protect them?

A Lunatic's picture

I see several conflicts of interest in this whole affair........

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

I'm not bright enough for the math but 800 plus cars - say the full 1,250--- $9.35 M --- who got the money? Guys got duped into bad deals but I don't recall any gold plated Bentleys. I smell lawyers.

SubjectivObject's picture


How hard is this to see?

Oh, and let's fine them! 

That is proooven to fix eeeeeeverything BANKSTER, alllllllll the time.


How hard is this to see?

DrNybble's picture

I didn't see where $9.3M penalty was to compensate the victims.
Did I miss that part or does that money just disappear into the black hole of government spending?

nmewn's picture

Stop! Thief!


Case closed.

Something about repos. In the Burg I lived next to a Navy vet from WWII, Richard, who also went to Stetson. He had this old broken down jeep in the back corner of his yard next to my rear driveway in the alley, wasn't hurting a thing as far as I was concerned, it was his on his property. The city government got some sort of complaint about it and wanted it removed, he basically told them to go pound sand.

So he's sitting there one night and he hears this whirring sound and looks outside and a tow truck has it rear-end poked through his back gate and some dude is hooking a cable to the jeep to drag it across his backyard to the gate.

He goes outside and sticks a 12 gauge shotgun between the guys nipples and yells "Mary, call the cops, I've caught a thief!" as the tow truck driver shits himself and starts talking about a piece of paper authorizing him to do it.

Long story short, the cops get there and tell the tow truck driver to get off Richards property, the matter would be handled in court if need be, not by some code enforcement bureaucrat with a pen.

The moral of the story is don't fuck with the old guys who know something about law and killing, they might just kill you, sometimes only for the larger point of trespassing on their property or just for practice.

You might want to check their mood first, he was in a good mood that night ;-)

Buster Cherry's picture

Amazing that there exists 3 total fuck faced pricks that would.downvote that story.

They'd make for great target practice.

disabledvet's picture

Wonder what happens when the Russian Bankers start repo'ing.

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

Fuk the Russians - how about the Chinese and they want their debts paid?

Atomizer's picture

Predatory car loan lending to validate US new bank stress failure. EBT welfare banking card will be next.

WTFUD's picture

They should never have parked them outside Baghdad Central during ISIL rush hour.

Atomizer's picture

CIA can blow up a Russia or China Government Motors (GM) globalization plant infrastructure and blame it on ISSEL. Cadaliic back orders will become AR15 ammo. 

serotonindumptruck's picture

Active duty military has long been recognized as prime hunting grounds for predatory lending institutions. Take a walk outside the front gates of a major military installation; within the first half mile or so, and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

It doesn't surprise me to know that new/used car dealerships are getting in on the action. Go ten days late on your car loan....well, sucks to be you...even if you are deployed overseas.

Fuck you. Pay me.

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

No shit - if you try and pay cash - they want no part of you. A lien on a guy's pay check is a golden ticket. Don't even get started on the dependapodomos'.

Vinividivinci's picture

Selling false burial plots to widows...having sex with children....illegally repo-ing cars from men and women while they're fighting to defend our country in some god forsaken land...one question....how low can we go !

Vinividivinci's picture

Hey "smedley", did she blow your mind too?
Pretty scarry stuff about the Comander in Chief.
Well it certainly goes a long way to explaning some things.

Yes_Questions's picture


Hola, Santander...

Big Auto Company here. We've got lots FULL of inventory and everything MUST GO!!

Si! No problem..

SmokinMonkey's picture

Santandar!!  I have heard that name before.  Look at what they did to the rainforest in this green peace video



autofinanceman1's picture

been happing for years now the goverment gets the fine and the soldier still has no car and tarnished credit like mortgages looks like to me . tragic for sure. Really says a lot about corporate and goverment process .