top of page
Search

Illinois self help car repo flies back in tow truck driver's face

  • Writer: Peter Schneider
    Peter Schneider
  • Oct 13, 2025
  • 4 min read

In 2022 the plaintiff, a Ms. Roberts, purchased a 2018 Chevy Equinox through a loan from Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation. She financed $24,817 and the terms of the loan included $21.572 in interest. About a year later she fell behind on the payments and Bridgecrest asked the defendant Image Recovery Services Inc to repossess the Equinox.


The car gave off a GPS ping so Image Recovery's agent Mr. Suda drove around looking for it, eventually spotting it at an apartment complex. Despite seeing Ms. Roberts behind the wheel, he backed up to and then closed the grabber arms around the tires of the Equinox.


When Ms. Roberts would not leave the car, Mr. Suda called the police and they:

repeatedly told Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Plaintiff refused. Eventually one of the officers threatened to forcibly pull Plaintiff out of the vehicle. After the officer's threat, Plaintiff got out of the vehicle, and Mr. Suda finished the repossession.

As we will soon see, another example of the police breaking the law themselves.


Ms. Roberts sued Image Recovery Services and eventually the two cross moved for summary judgment. Like many states, Illinois allows repossession if done without a breach of the peace.

Illinois courts have concluded that "the term 'breach of the peace' connotes conduct which incites or is likely to incite immediate public turbulence, or which leads to or is likely to lead to an immediate loss of public order and tranquility." No violent conduct is necessary. "The probability of violence at the time of or immediately prior to the repossession is sufficient." The Court concludes that Defendant repossessed Plaintiff's vehicle despite a breach of the peace. It finds there was a breach of the peace for two reasons. First, Mr. Suda started the repossession when he knew Plaintiff was sitting inside of the vehicle. The Court has not found an Illinois case that addresses whether repossession of an occupied vehicle is a breach of the peace, so it will look to decisions from other jurisdictions . . . There are many courts, including one within this Circuit, that have found it is a breach of the peace to repossess an occupied vehicle . . . Beginning to repossess Plaintiff's vehicle while it was occupied "plainly constitute[s] the kind of hazard resulting from confrontation during self-help repossession that the UCC seeks to avoid." Shue, 745 F. Supp. 3d. It creates a high risk of injury and increases the probability for violence. Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Suda starting to repossess Plaintiff's vehicle while it was occupied is a breach of the peace . . . Second, two police officers from the Shiloh PD assisted Mr. Suda in the repossession of Plaintiff's vehicle. Illinois courts have not addressed whether police involvement in a self-help repossession is a breach of the peace. However, the Court is satisfied that an Illinois court would hold that it is . . . Many jurisdictions have held that the assistance of law enforcement officers in a self-help repossession constitutes a breach of the peace . . . These courts reason that, the presence of a police officer, by itself, "is sufficient to chill the legitimate exercise of the defaulting party's rights." . . . "a police officer must not act as a 'curbside courtroom' in resolving a dispute between a repossessor and debtor as this is not the proper function of the police" and "such a dispute should be resolved by the courts, not a police officer."

Ms. Roberts was suing in part under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, and their version has statutory damages of the cost of the financing plus 10 percent of the good itself. Image Recovery Services Inc got rung up for $24,817 for the illegal repossession. Then got rung up again under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

"[A] repossession without judicial process violates § 1692f(6)(A) unless the property is collateral under an enforceable security interest and the repossessor has a 'present right to possession' of the property." The Act "does not define the phrase 'present right to possession.'" "Repossession rights are governed by the relevant state's property and contract law," so the Court "must look to state law to determine whether a repossessor had a present right to possess the property at the time it was seized." Illinois law only permits self-help repossession if it is completed without a breach of the peace. Here, there was a breach of the peace, so Defendant did not have a present right to possess the vehicle at the time it was seized. Based on the undisputed facts, Plaintiff has proven all elements required for recovery under section 1692f. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on her FDCPA claim.

The FDCPA penalty is $1,000 plus attorney fees. The bottom line? In many states self help repos can't be done legally if they breach the peace.



Got a Case Like This?

If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.


Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?

I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.

📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000


Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.




 
 
 

Comments

Back to Top

BACK TO TOP

bottom of page