"An Ohio woman, whose car was repossessed by the dealership just one month after she bought it, has pulled off a revenge move for the ages.
Tiah McCreary discovered, as she explored legal options against the company, that the dealer has failed to renew the registration on the company’s name with the Ohio Secretary of State, so she registered it in her name—then hit the dealer with a cease-and-desist order, ordering them to no longer use the name they’ve used since 2012."
Case is still pending...
Edit: This comment is worth adding to the post. Dealership that likes to sue, loses business name registration, and gets sued. Karmic irony.
u/gixxersixxxer - "I used to work as a mechanic at this very dealership. They are very sue happy, I've never seen anything like it before. The company is awful to work for, and clearly they, as a dealership, are awful to do business with as well. You can look up the court cases they have at the Lima municipal courts website. There's at least 73 cases.
They are a buy here pay here dealership that masquerades as a new car dealership. I used to regularly install ignition interrupt devices and gps devices for repossession purposes."
I used to work as a mechanic at this very dealership. They are very sue happy, I've never seen anything like it before. The company is awful to work for, and clearly they, as a dealership, are awful to do business with as well. You can look up the court cases they have at the Lima municipal courts website. There's at least 73 cases.
They are a buy here pay here dealership that masquerades as a new car dealership. I used to regularly install ignition interrupt devices and gps devices for repossession purposes.
If you live anywhere in Ohio, I would avoid all of their dealerships. From Toledo, Findlay, down to Lima, they are the stereotypical sleazeball used car dealership. In Lima, if you're in the market for a new Kia, go to Tom ahl and buy a Hyundai. It's the same car.
Matilda, anyone?
I am sorry, again: ignition interrupt devices and GPS trackers? I… what the fuck.
1. These are safety hazards on multiple levels
2. That sounds mighty illegal
3. This is straight up evil…
Nothing wrong with them unless you are the sort to not pay your note. Only time they get activated is when you don't pay and are supposed to make repo easier for them. If it happens by mistake, odds are you have an input device to regain access
What about once the note has been fully paid off? Are they removed from the car? Because at that point, wouldn’t someone else having that kind of access control to someone else’s property enter illegal territory?
Wasn't removed from mine, but I still held the remote to deactivate the kill switch. If the dealer tried being shady enough to risk trouble they couldn't afford
She should open up some kind of business, even if it's from her home. Many government agencies make you buy the name in good faith that you're not just sitting on it with no proper intentions.
She needs to change her name to Taylor Kiaoflima and claim she was excited to see the business name available as she'd been wanting to change it to that for years!
That’s pretty awesome.
I love this because the dealership is going to spend well above the value of a Kia defending this lawsuit.
She should just ask for the Kia, scott free, with lifetime maintenance, in return for the name rights. As you point out it’ll probably cost them less than fighting it.
That’s probably what her demand was before she filed suit, and she filed because they told her no. You can’t save people from their own idiocy.
Nah her best bet is to demand that they actually stop using the name, name changes are fricking expensive. At some point lawyers will just say "pay her off" and they'll come in with an offer.
would you really want, or trust, them to service it?
no!
If it's free maintenance from that place for life? Yes. Otherwise they just create more work for themselves
And if they’re dealing in bad faith, then here comes the lawsuit again!
Not if they ‘fix’ the brakes….
No, she can do much better than that. She can license the name to the dealer for monthly fee forever. She should buy her car from an unrelated dealer unless she has a clause in the licensing agreement that says the license is suspended anytime there is a disagreement regarding maintenance of the car. Otherwise, they will continually mess with her.
Good thinking
Or maybe she should not have committed fraud when filling out her credit application. She is not the hero, just a petty criminal who created her own problem.
Where do you see that? Or are you just making it up?
She didn't. A month after she put her app through, the loan company (not a bank) suddenly decided they didn't have enough info to approve the loan. This should be illegal. They repossesed her car while she was at work, even though she'd been told the loan was approved. Wouldn't surprise me if this guy works for the loan company, or one like it. Official story according to the courts
They're just a corporate shill making shit up
Right because banks and financing companies are infallible and never make mistakes. Go away corporate shill.
OOooooh, I've spotted a wild corporate boot licker!
Just changing the sign out front would cost more than a Kia...
Not to mention coming up with a new name that they have to file to use. They've really stuck their foot in it with this one.
Plus all the money to advertise the new name on all their regular platforms like TV and radio. Internet sites etc
That’s p(r)etty awesome.
Horribly written article
Government website info on this case
So we disappointed in AI already?
I keep forgetting about that. my bad
Should I not be?
We're we ever not?
She did the lawsuit version of reverse uno.
🤣
The Taylor family is pretty slimy. Tom Noe has dirt on their illegal political donations and other activities that these conservatives engaged in during the 90’s when he and his wife Bernadette ran the Lucas county Republican Party. Tom, went to prison for running a questionable coin fund for the Ohio BWC. When he got out he was “gifted” cars, jewelry, meals, personal items etc. from many of the people he didn’t rat out- including Steve Taylor’s father.
It’s simple she said income was lets say 5k a month on the credit app. Dealer submitted to bank. Bank said yes but we need proof of income. Dealer sends in her paystubs and turns out she actually makes 4k a month. At that income of 4k she doesn’t qualify for the loan offer anymore. Im sure dealer spent a week or two trying to get another approval but could not secure one. Im sure she was upset and not returning the car or stopped answering the dealers calls. So the dealer went and picked up their car back. It was never repoed because it was never hers to begin with. Which she definitely signed paperwork stating that if the loan falls through then she has to return the car.
You might want to actually find out facts before you start making up stories. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2025/COA/0728/2025-OH-2563.asp
I wonder exactly what "available information" means when the lender "concluded that the available information regarding McCreary’s income was not sufficient to substantiate a loan in the requested amount..."
It doesn't say she overstated her income, or attempted to defraud the dealership in any way. I wonder what information they relied upon to come to that conclusion? If she flat out lied about her income then it should say so. I am just curious about the rather vague wording here.
I agree. It seems to me that the lender just made a snap decision, then changed their mind later. Someone these lending companies are a bit less than above board. One person commented here that he used to work with the dealership and they're very shady with their lending practices and that this isn't uncommon. If so, maybe it's about time someone retaliated .
And I'm sure you don't know. It's quite simple to assume facts, but quite another to prove them. You have not the faintest idea because these facts are not yet in the public domain. But let's play your game for a moment.
It's simple, she was approved based on the records she submitted and then the lender changed its mind after the fact unjustly. Seeking leverage outside of arbitration, she did her research and made her moves.
Thanks for the summary. Not a hero, obviously, but damn if it isn’t still funny.
Yes, thank you for explaining that to the many that think she was a hero.
You people just made up this narrative. She claims they never reached out, period. You're trash.
Explaining requires facts. There are no facts, only speculation here. But this is typical for your type. Facts are not needed to reach any conclusions.
Except,in another article I saw on Reddit, she got the car 2 years before it got repossessed, and it never mentions that she missed any payment.
She didn't miss any payments. She had the car for a month before they repossesed it. People are just making stuff up everywhere. They loan company decided later they "didn't have enough information" to make the loan, whatever the flip that means. Could mean anything.
Exactly. The dealership didn't do anything wrong, she did this to herself.
Do we know if the dealer or she put the false income down? I know I’ve seen it where they rounded income up to the next thousand before. Making a 3150 into 4K on a friends paperwork he had me review.
This is a local dealer to me, they are known for pulling shady stuff like this to get the sale.
They gave her the car before the loan was approved. They fucked up large.
This is pretty standard practice for dealerships - banks aren’t open all weekend, so if they want to sell cars on Sunday, they kinda have to use preliminary approvals. And the financing falling through isn’t entirely uncommon, they’re a regular post on r/personalfinance.
But usually the dealer reaches out and offers alternative financing or gives you a chance to acquire your own, or you have to return the car, all of which is laid out in the sales contract. But they usually contact you pretty quickly, and only resort to repossession if you refuse.
Well not necicarirly, so my SO's dad ran a dealership. Many many many many dealers make up income when sending in a loan for a customer, mainly rounding up to the nearest thousandth dollar. They also often do things like this but there is never any singed paperwork, the person just drives off the lot with temp tags as the loan is processed. Like dealerships are the biggest hotspot for crooked dumbasses, this shit is so common.
The nearest thousandth, so like the nearest tenth of a cent? That shouldn't really change things ...
No, they mean $3,225 rounded to $4,000
The only possible other option where she is still a victim is if they pull the “Yes, you qualify for 2% financing. Sign here.” Followed by “Whelp, I’m sorry our lender just said no. You have to come in and sign for a 7% interest rate. Who could have seen this coming?”
[deleted]
Probably Reddit's new keyword advertising schtick.
I'd that the blue text with magnifier next to it? Where'd you hear about this?
Those magnifying glass links are for Reddit Answers searches because nobody was interacting with their new AI gimmick naturally. Gotta keep the investors happy.
Someone was bitching about it on another sub. Don't remember which one, sorry! Seems to be a pretty new feature, though.
The article is on Fortune's website, not Reddit.
It's a way keeping people on your site and creating back links for page rankings. No idea why this other person thinks it has anything to do with reddit
Probably because Reddit did just rollout this new feature recently, confusing and pissing off a bunch of people.
There's some worker drone bee at Taylor Kia of Lima who forgot to renew the company name and is now shitting their pants. Cue 'I'm in danger' gif.
The 'worker drone bee' is probably one of the on-staff paralegals. There's a comment above on how sue-happy the dealership is, and that's the sort of thing that gets dumped on paralegals as it's legal-adjacent.
I'm waiting for the Steve Lehto video for more explanation on this one.
This would be a great one for him to do a video on. I bet if a lot of us sent him the link, he would.
I’d feel better about this as „pro revenge” if I knew more about why her car was repo’d.
The article, though poorly written, suggests that she had a preliminary loan approval for the car but when the bank examined the details/evidence supporting her application, the loan was not approved.
My question is why did the dealership let her have the car before the finance was in place?
The sales guy wanted it on his books before the month was up so he could fill his quota, and the sales manager wanted another plaque on his office wall …
Speaking of sales guys, wouldn't you think that having processed loan paperwork for sales many times over, they would have a pretty good idea of the level of income needed in order to qualify for a car loan? Kinda shady if they're letting people take vehicles when they know their loan application is likely be denied
One word: „Quota”.
Or, as the supposed real motto of Best Buy has it, „Lie to a customer and you’re fired. Lose a sale and you’re fired for real.”
Most likely answer - she bought it on a Sunday, and they gave it to her on a preliminary approval, that was rejected after the underwriters were back in their office. It’s fairly standard practice for dealerships, and every once in a while it falls through, but they usually reach out pretty quickly to say that you either have to secure your own financing or return the car.
Because we of the Hot Pockets generation want what we want and we want it right now. Any dealership that waits for the full approval of the loan before letting someone take possession of a car will get review bombed for "poor customer service." That's why they came up with "pre-approval" in the first place.
We don’t really get enough detail to say, but I think there are two likely answers: 1. The financing fell through, the dealership never told her, and they just mysteriously repo’d her car without notice after a month. 2. The financing fell through, the dealership reached out and said she could either acquire her own financing or return the car. She refused to do either, so they went and took the car back.
Under normal circumstances, I’d guess the latter, but there are a lot of comments here about how scummy this dealership is in general, so… 🤷♂️
Revenge for what exactly? She applued for a loan to buy a car. Dealership allowed her use of car prior to loan being finalised. Loan was not granted by finance company. Dealership took back car. Disgruntled woman, whose loan application was denied by a finance company, takes out her frustrations on the dealership. Pro Revenge? No. Very funny story though.
They repoed her car without telling her or asking her to return the vehicle.
I think it really depends on who put her monthly or annual income on the paperwork. If she fudged it the repossession is all on her, if the dealer did the fudging w/o her approval they need to be held accountable for their actions.
The dealership could put 2 million dollars a month as income. The consumer still needs to sign off on the credit application. If they knowingly and willingly commit fraud, they're just as guilty, if not more so depending upon how the law sees their signature.
Let’s all hope she wins.
Can Peru send Ohio a cease and desist order too?
I think place names are exempt. the dealership is in Lima, Ohio.
There were similar rumblings out of the Province of Ontario when a cheap, ugly, tasteless variety of potato got named for the small town near the original farm. Said town is Ontario, Ohio. The Ontario potato killed the potato industry in Ontario (probably intentionally), leading Prince Edward Island to be the Potato Capital of Canada.
I too used to work at a buy-here-pay-here and was also tasked with installing gps trackers and ignition kill switches. We would usually repo 2-3 cars per week.
One stupid writer decides to call this revenge and now every story is using that label. This is not revenge unless there's a quote from her saying that was her intent. This is a strategic response to reneging without notice on an agreement. It's called leverage, but actually it could become far more than that. If she is allowed to keep the name, then she can LICENSE the name to who ever wants to pay her monthly or yearly for its use. If I were her, I probably would license the use of the name for a sum about equal to the cost of a 2022 Kia and monthly payments about equal to the payments for a 2022 Kia. The alternative to not having a license is to remove the name from everything from advertisements to stationary to signage.
This story is amazing. Dying to see how it unfolds.
Also Kia corporate should gift her a car for her craftiness!
I aspire to this level of pettiness!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Lol, so I read the article. It isn't a repossession per se, but a spot or conditional delivery. They let her take the car without full income verification. She most certainly signed paperwork stating that she would return the car if they couldn't get her completely approved. The fact that they had to get it a month later means she wasn't voluntarily returning the car.
I had this happen to me once. Had to return the car the next business day, but we ended up redoing the financing terms that actually benefited me.
We don't know the kind of communication that was provided to her. For all we know, they could have just said "f-it," and instead of talking to her, just went to her work and took the car, causing embarrassment.
are you fr bro? You should seriously go read the news article. And "for all we know", nothing about the sale of a vehicle is left to an assumed understanding. This dealership isn't a buy-here-pay-here lot.
From the news: "She left the lot in the K5 with a loan provisionally approved by Global Lending Services. But a month later, the lender declined to finalize the loan, and Taylor Kia repossessed the car while McCreary was at work." https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/07/a-dealer-took-her-car-then-ohio-woman-turned-the-tables.html
I have purchased more than 20 cars over many years in the state of Ohio. Each and every one of them had a return clause. I would have to return the vehicle if any of the approvals went south. I have actually had to return one for this reason.
I went an looked at a purchase agreement for my latest car. In that agreement there is a default clause. This clause states that the dealer can repossess under some terms, two of them are: false or misleading info on the contract, or fails to keep other agreements in the contract. By failing to secure financing, for any reason, the dealership was correct in repossessing the car. Yes it is embarrassing to have a car repo'd, but the dealership had a right to take it back.
I'm not negating that it was in the contract, and they had the right to take it back.
I'm questioning, did they, in good faith, make the effort to resolve the situation before repossessing the car?
We dont have a statement from them saying, "We made multiple attempts with McCreary to resolve the situation, and left multiple messages, but she didnt return any of our calls or the car, so we had no other choice but to repo the car, etc., etc."
Listen, I had the same thing happen to me. It took OVER two weeks for them to even contact me about it. They did, however offer me the same make and model with less miles, it just didn’t have all the bells and whistles. It’s not necessarily true that they told her right away.
except if the loan fell through then that wasn't her car
Not how it works. Dealer has the option of changing terms and resubmitting. In this case I can guarantee the dealership got paid by lender then lost loan. Shady as fuck
its up to the dealer to find the financing or self finance at that point.
And if the registration wasn't renewed, it's not the dealership's name. So both parties are totally in the clear.
This is good news for Disney+ subscribers also. Online programming and Theme park injuries are completely separate issues and should be litigated as such. FUCK THE BIG RAT!
I lived in Florida and heard about Disney’s underhanded tactics to settle lawsuits cheap.
Of course, the Florida laws were probably passed to allow it.
Disney has hundreds of ‘subsidiary’ businesses with different names.
Suppose you file against Disney about a minor roller-coaster incident. No permanent injury, no significant loss of blood (people would have taken pics and posted to social).
But it ruined the rest of your vacation, and your whole family had to buy new clothes and regrow all your body hair.
You must file the suit in the jurisdiction in which the injury occurred - Florida.
And your Florida attorney does as you ask and sends you papers to sign suing ‘The Disney Corporation’. (That makes you feel righteous)
But everyone in the legal business (and half the residents) knows the paperwork will be filed and recorded against a non-Disney entity like ‘Roller Coaster Shipping, Delivery and Maintenance, LLC’
And there are shell companies providing LAYERS of distance from it to the Disney name.
The local lawyer knows YOU don’t have the money to go to court against Disney - because no one does! The lawyer also doesn’t want to get shivved in the back one night at the movies!
Your lawyer is only working on contingency for you because they KNOW exactly how this will play out.
They go to court against Roller Coaster Shipping….
The opposing counsel pleads that RC LLC is a teeny-tiny little company, incorporated after the founder has a vision from Jesus, and on Sunday they use the warehouse as a church.
(This has a LOT of weight on Florida )
Everyone in the room knows that is utter bullshit, but it’s part of the court transcript now, which looks good.
Pastor RC LLC has very few assets. Half the profit is tithed towards missionaries feeding starving children in Africa 🥺
They had no idea that ‘this tiny ding on this tiny support rail’ was damaged during unloading.
Of course if they knew, they wouldn’t have delivered it. Performs guilt and horror!
Out of their limited assets, the offer to settle for a ‘decent’ amount. For Jesus. (Otherwise they admit liability)
The amount is galaxies smaller than you would expect from DISNEY.
But your lawyer warned you that you would ‘pay thousands, up front, and lose’ if you go to court. Probably even used the ‘David & Goliath’ argument (which can go either way, depending on their need)
They advised you to settle ‘for just about any reasonable amount’.
(Those lawyers work on contingency, so they will make damn sure it’s reasonable)
You get enough to salve your righteous anger, and maybe put a pool in the back yard.
Your lawyer makes a good chunk of that reasonable amount.
You’re happy. You’re lawyer is happy. The judges and clerks and court recorders are happy. They have jobs and can buy food.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, it makes Disney happy. And because it’s just You vs little ol’ RC LLC, it’s not picked up by the news.
Many local reporters carefully don’t examine those cases too much.
And that is how it’s scripted by everyone - except you, and most of the area residents, who wouldn’t care anyway.
The three main sources of $ for the entire state of Florida are retirees, the space industry, and tourism. Not necessarily in that order.
And in the Orlando area? Probably 95% is from theme park attendance.
Except for 3-4 few days before a shuttle launch.
*I doubt California puts up with this shit, if they can stop it
Ooh. Let's see who blinks first. Love that for her
Love this for her
Is it even legal to install ignition interrupt devices and GPS's in a car for repo purposes as that sounds very illegal.
Now that is Pro Revenge
If she owns the name technically, she can fight the repossession order
She owns the name, not the dealership.
Oh that's funny
She deserves a medal..
Excellent
What the hell was wrong with that first court taht said her case was invalid?
The attorney for the dealership cited the arbitration clause in the contract for the car, stating that bringing the case to trail would be breaking the contract. Idk why the judge dismissed it though, clearly the contract was null & void at that point, since the dealership has possession of the vehicle and the finance company did not finalize the loan. This court case had nothing to do with that original contract. 🤷🏻♀️
That’s fucking dangerous!
remind me! 90 days
Absolute legend!! 😂 This woman took 'petty revenge' to a whole new level, and honestly, I’m here for it. Just goes to show, never mess with someone's ride. #CarDealershipDrama
Come on down to “TIAH’S KIA”
Ms. McCreary - this has a nice ring to it! Please answer my Internet dreams and tell me that you will keep the name of the dealership and change it to YOURS! I would be on the floor laughing my ass off every time they had to send out any type of paperwork or pay a bill or advertise ….only to always see your name!!
TIAH’S KIA - best deal in town!
i tried buying from Taylor in Findlay and Toledo and had terrible sales experiences at both. Toledo would only try to sell me a used car vs ordering new and findlay wouldn’t deal on price despite being $6,000 more than a nearby dealer (named Halleen Kia who was a dream to work with).
[deleted]
The way a different article stated it was the dealership agreed to the sale, the financing company/bank agreed, and then when the bank took a closer look at the actual filed documentation a significant amount of time later, they said 'no way, Jose' and the dealership revoked the sale, even though the owner never missed a payment, and didn't even try to work things out with the owner.
She should ask for a brand new top of the line, most expensive vehicle they sell -with free maintenance, life time warranty and they can have the name back.
Get the Kia back! The Epstein files are in the trunk!
[deleted]
If the car was repo'd in the first month, she didn't even have time to fall behind.
From reading it, doesn’t appear it even reached point where she got a bill. They decided to reverse the loan and took the car back. The hint was “one month later”. Loans coming due don’t operate that fast as usually period of notices and late fee fines.
It says in the article she was approved preliminary but a month later they decided her income wasn't enough and repossessed the Kia while she was at work.
Which more than likely means she lied about her income.
Not true.
u/corgalas doesn't know how to read an article.
Getting pro revenge is not about being an morally or ethically upstanding individual, you know that right?
It also didn't say she didn't pay her bills, just that the dealership finance dept later determined that they felt her income was insufficient. In which case they shouldn't have sold her the car to begin with, right? That seems kind of shady.
So is it pro revenge that the whole reason they wanted the car back is because her credit score is lower than the engine HP, she never owned the car in the first place, and if she kept it, it would have been grand theft auto?
She didn't "buy" anything. The dealership did a spot delivery and had every right to take the vehicle back after the financing fell through.