Go Back   DealershipForum.com > Domestic Franchises and Independent Dealers > Chrysler > Finance

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2009, 07:48 AM   #31
DealerEx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 548
Default

In any other situation, this would be considered extortion. What they are doing is no better than paying the mob for "protection". They are demanding payment for non-existent losses, that may NEVER occur, and holding the money they owe the dealers as hostage. There is no legal way they can demand payment--in advance--for losses that haven't been incurred, but they are bulletproof because of the BK situation. If the dealer refuses to pay them and they take it out of what they owe the dealer, the dealer's only recourse is to sue them, and both sides know that they are judgement proof. No different than an armed robber telling his victim to "give me your wallet without a fight, and I'll let you keep your watch". On top of everything else, they know the dealers will never see a dime of that money refunded, because CFC won't even exist by the time all the contracts have been paid off.
DealerEx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 08:55 AM   #32
s32741bb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Default

I think Chrysler Financial needs to be investigated on this issue . It seems illegal to me . I was told they can not change my amount which is way too high considering I wrote all my gap;life/a&h warranties with another company. We need some help on this with the NADA and Congress
s32741bb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 09:27 AM   #33
possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,122
Default

NADA will not help with anything, except collecting dues.
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 01:42 PM   #34
CDCJ
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 26
Default

It was suggested to me to take the 75% choice since we haven't funded a contract with CFC in over 6 months therefore the potential chargebacks should be much less than the 2 year average they are showing. I think this 2 year figure is inflated anyway since we can recoup some of the chargebacks on service contracts and gap.
CDCJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 04:58 PM   #35
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDCJ View Post
It was suggested to me to take the 75% choice since we haven't funded a contract with CFC in over 6 months therefore the potential chargebacks should be much less than the 2 year average they are showing. I think this 2 year figure is inflated anyway since we can recoup some of the chargebacks on service contracts and gap.
I've wondered how much chargeback exposure their really is too.

I think for some dealers they're willing to write the "walk away" check so they never have to think about CF ever again.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 04:20 AM   #36
Kitfox
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
Default

I agree. I wanted to not pay anything and take my chances with chargebacks but that was not an option so I decided to pay the full "Walk Away" amount which was an additional $600 just to be done with the dirty *******!
Kitfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 04:36 PM   #37
blauto
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22
Default

I posted this in the wrong section. I think it is better suited here.


For those Chrysler dealers who had the "walk away" conversation. I looked
into the deal. First of all it only applies to those dealers who have had
their floor plans with Chrysler Credit. If Ford Credit was your primary
source, there are no UCC's on your business. They will all be secondary,
and it won't affect any financing options you might need. The other part
that is really dirty pool on Chrysler's part is that the walkaway was set
up so the dealer could walk away and sleep at night. HE was given the option
to pay the "walkaway" amount or stay with the portfolio. It was not set up
for Chrysler. They are just trying to grab some cash. They have no right
to that money. Ask them for the agreement. I would be surprised if it
contains any such language.
blauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 05:49 PM   #38
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blauto View Post
I posted this in the wrong section. I think it is better suited here.
No problem, I'll delete your post in the other section to eliminate confusion.

You make an excellent point concerning which party originally intended to use a "walk away" provision. I'm sure when the dealers signed those documents they never envisioned a day when CF would be split-off from Chrysler and left to die.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 04:57 AM   #39
possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,122
Default

Does it make any difference that for Oldco Dealers, all contracts were void on June 9? If you signed, or not, THEY voided the contract. Does that matter?

If the tables were turned, would they honor a void contract and pay us? I doubt it.
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 07:39 AM   #40
littleman
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 69
Default

Update: I was told to make a decision by the end of Aug.. I have contacted my rep. again and again over the last week to see what (said she would have an answer for me a week ago) she has found out about our 1,000 being held from day one. (I was going to apply that towards my 75%) She called back earlier this week to inform me that there has been an urgent issue with CFC and my inquiry has been put on hold due to more pressing issues. I called our GMAC rep to research if it would have an impact on us getting permanent financing. He replied "Yes". Still waiting for reply on our 1k. Anyone else have an update?
littleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 07:57 AM   #41
possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,122
Default

The CFC letter says they are offering the Dealership the "OPTION" of.......

Why not just don't take the option?
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 08:08 AM   #42
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by possum View Post
The CFC letter says they are offering the Dealership the "OPTION" of.......

Why not just don't take the option?
To the extent that ALL of CF's dealers now have the "pay as you go option" I imagine most will take that option.

In fact, it will be interesting to see how many of the dealers who had written "walk away" checks will want their money back and go with Option 1 instead?

I wonder why CF is making the change and allowing dealers to use the "pay as you go" option? After putting up such a fight it seems strange they would change their position.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 08:12 AM   #43
possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,122
Default

If you do a "walk a way" check, and it is not used up, there is NO refund.
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 08:27 AM   #44
possum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,122
Default

My first thought on why CFC would change, is because nobody was going to pay the "Walk a Way". Or at least, Oldco Dealers were not.

They may feel at least there is a chance with an option, albeit slim to none.
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 08:43 AM   #45
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by possum View Post
My first thought on why CFC would change, is because nobody was going to pay the "Walk a Way". Or at least, Oldco Dealers were not.

They may feel at least there is a chance with an option, albeit slim to none.
While that may be true with the OLDCO dealers, CF has total control over the NEWCO dealers who want to transition to GMAC flooring. The fact that CF was not going to release the UCCs gave them all the power they needed.

I'm wondering if their change in policy is due to some political pressure?

I doubt that it's rooted in their concerns for dealership cash flow because of the CARS program as was stated in the letter.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Car Lot Cowboy" Reality TV Show coming to Spike TV XDCX Automotive Discussions 67 04-15-2013 09:37 AM
Dealer fails to buy "Hole in one" insurance and reneges on prize XDCX Automotive Discussions 4 05-20-2010 11:24 PM
Has Chrysler's "Minivan Pledge" increased Showroom Traffic and Sales? XDCX Sales 31 04-08-2010 03:25 PM
Dealer want $2.2 Million "Blue Sky" for a Hyundai Dealership in Chicago XDCX Sales 5 10-06-2009 09:28 AM
NEWCO Dealer attacks OLDCO Dealers with "Buyers Beware" ad XDCX Sales 8 06-01-2009 03:43 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright DealershipForum.com - 2008 - 2016