A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Reinstating vs Redeeming Your Repossessed Vehicle

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Consumer have the right to  “reinstate” their car loan by paying all amounts past due, plus any applicable delinquency charges, collection and repossession costs. California consumers should be aware that a creditor can NOT deny the right to reinstate merely because the consumer is behind on his or her payments.   Consumers can also “redeem” the vehicle by paying the loan balance in full, plus any applicable delinquency charges, collection and repossession costs.  Reinstating the loan generally costs the consumer less than redeeming the vehicle.

There are some reasons that a California consumer can be denied the right to reinstate, such as:  The buyer has reinstated once before in a 12-month period or two times during the term of the contract;  The buyer or any other person liable on the contract intentionally provided false or misleading information of material importance on his or her credit application; The buyer, any other person liable on the contract, or any permissive user in possession of the motor vehicle, in order to avoid repossession has concealed the motor vehicle or removed it from California; The buyer, any other person liable on the contract, or any permissive user in possession of the motor vehicle, has committed or threatens to commit acts of destruction, or has failed to take care of the motor vehicle in a reasonable manner, so that the motor vehicle has become substantially impaired in value or may become substantially impaired in value; The buyer or any other person liable on the contract has committed, attempted to commit, or threatened to commit criminal acts of violence or bodily harm against an agent, employee, or officer of the creditor in connection with the creditor’s repossession of or attempt to repossess the motor vehicle; The buyer has knowingly used the motor vehicle, or has knowingly permitted it to be used, in connection with the commission of a criminal offense, other as a consequence of which the motor vehicle has been seized by a federal, state, or local agency;  The motor vehicle has been seized by a federal, state, or local public agency or authority pursuant to a law which essentially precludes the return of the vehicle to the buyer or any other person liable on the contract; It also is important to note that in any court action, the creditor (not the consumer) must prove that the denial of the right to reinstate was justified in that it was reasonable and made in good faith.

If you have been wrongfully allowed to reinstate your vehicle please give my office, The Law Office of Todd M. Friedman a call today at (877) 449-8898.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.