In July 2025, a Kansas woman signed what she believed was a final car deal. By September, police were standing at her workplace in full view of her boss and coworkers to repossess her car.
Bell Law, LLC filed suit against Laird Noller Hyundai in Lawrence, Kansas over what we believe is one of the most egregious yo-yo financing scams we’ve encountered in our years of consumer protection work.
What Is a Yo-Yo Financing Scam?
A yo-yo scam happens when a dealership lets you drive off the lot seemingly with a done deal, and then contacts you days or weeks later claiming the financing “fell through.” They pressure you to return the car, sign new terms, or both. The name comes from the way the car yo-yos back to the dealer.
These scams are widespread in the auto industry. But what happened to our client, Crystal Osburn, went far beyond a typical yo-yo scheme.
Crystal Osburn’s Story
Crystal did everything right. She visited Laird Noller Hyundai multiple times, worked closely with the sales team, and waited while they claimed to be “calling in a favor with one of the lenders” to secure her approval.
On July 25, 2025, she signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract for a 2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer. The contract named Ally Financial as the lender, set an interest rate of 24.69%, and stated her first payment was due September 8, 2025. She drove home believing her purchase was complete.
It wasn’t.
The Dealership Knew Financing Wasn’t Approved — Before She Signed
This is where the situation becomes far more serious than a typical financing dispute.
According to our complaint, the dealership knew, at the time Crystal signed that contract, that financing from Ally Financial had not been approved. We know this because of a text message sent on August 29, 2025, by the dealership’s own General Sales Manager, Morgan Franklin:
“We knew immediately and then have attempted to find another lender to accept your loan.”
That is a direct written admission. The dealership presented Crystal with a contract for financing that did not exist, then allowed her to drive off the lot anyway.
Our complaint also alleges that the contract included a fictitious $3,000 down payment — combining a cash payment Crystal never made and a trade-in vehicle the dealership never inspected, took possession of, or obtained a title for. We believe this figure was fabricated to make the deal appear more attractive to lenders.
A Month of Pressure, Threats, and Harassment
Over the next month, Crystal received a series of escalating contacts from the dealership:
- August 15, 2025: The dealership texted asking for her most recent pay stub to “finalize” a purchase she believed was already final.
- August 29, 2025: The dealership told her they couldn’t find a lender and demanded she return the car or provide a co-buyer by the close of business the next day.
- September 4, 2025: The General Sales Manager texted: “We are reporting the vehicle stolen. We need it back today.”
Crystal had consulted with an attorney by this point. She understood her rights and held firm.
Even so, the dealership followed through on its threat.
Police Showed Up at Her Job and Repossessed Her Car
On September 5, 2025 — three days before her first payment was due — local law enforcement officers appeared at Crystal’s workplace. In front of her employer and colleagues, officers told her she was required to return the vehicle. They then followed her to the dealership to ensure she complied.
She surrendered the car under duress.
This was not a lawful repossession. Under Kansas law, a secured party may only repossess a vehicle without a court order if the borrower has defaulted. Crystal had not defaulted. She had not missed a payment. As a result, there was no legal basis to take that vehicle.
Furthermore, using law enforcement to pressure a consumer into surrendering a vehicle, before any default has occurred, is precisely the kind of breach of the peace that Kansas law prohibits.
The Real-World Impact on Crystal
The consequences of the dealership’s actions were immediate and lasting.
Without a vehicle, Crystal applied for a car loan at Meritrust Credit Union. She was denied, partly because the dealership had run numerous hard credit inquiries on her account without her knowledge or specific consent while shopping her application to multiple lenders. In other words, the dealership’s actions damaged not just her access to transportation, but her creditworthiness itself.
Beyond the financial damage, the public confrontation at her workplace caused Crystal to experience anxiety, depression, insomnia, panic attacks, and loss of self-esteem. Being confronted by police at work — over a debt she didn’t owe, before a payment she hadn’t missed — is not something that simply fades away.
The Claims We Filed
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against Laird Noller Automotive, Inc., d/b/a Laird Noller Hyundai. You can read the full complaint here: Case No. 2:25-cv-2596. It asserts the following claims:
Truth in Lending Act (TILA): The contract’s key disclosures — including the amount financed, finance charge, and annual percentage rate — were rendered inaccurate by the fictitious down payment. The dealership also failed to disclose that the financing terms were not final at signing.
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA): The yo-yo scheme, the false down payment, the threats, and the use of police to coerce vehicle surrender each constitute deceptive or unconscionable acts under Kansas consumer protection law.
Unlawful Repossession: Crystal was not in default. The dealership had no legal right to repossess her vehicle. Under Kansas law, statutory damages for unlawful repossession alone are at least $25,972.50.
Conversion: The dealership took Crystal’s property without legal justification — a strict-liability tort under Kansas law.
Breach of Contract: The signed Retail Installment Sale Contract was valid and binding. The dealership repudiated it and then seized the subject vehicle.
Fraud and Fraud Through Silence: The dealership made false representations about the financing status and down payment, and concealed the truth while Crystal relied on the appearance of a completed transaction.
Negligence: Even if the conduct was not intentional, the dealership negligently managed the financing process, prepared documents containing false information, and directed an unlawful repossession.
We are seeking actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, civil penalties under the KCPA, and attorney’s fees. We have demanded a jury trial.
Why This Case Matters
Crystal Osburn’s experience is not an isolated incident. Yo-yo financing schemes are a recognized, widespread problem in the auto industry. What sets this case apart is the combination of a documented written admission, a fabricated down payment, a sustained pressure campaign, and ultimately the decision to involve police to take a car from a woman at her place of work before she had missed a single payment.
That is not a financing dispute. Those are deliberate choices made at the expense of someone who had every right to believe her car was hers.
We are proud to represent Crystal, and we will pursue this case vigorously.
Has This Happened to You?
If a dealer told you your financing was approved, let you drive off the lot, and then called you back demanding you return the car or sign new paperwork — you may have a case.
If a dealer threatened to report your vehicle stolen, involved law enforcement, or repossessed your car before you ever missed a payment, you should speak with a consumer protection attorney right away.
Bell Law, LLC has dedicated its practice to holding auto dealers accountable for exactly this kind of conduct. We offer free initial consultations. In most consumer protection cases, you pay nothing unless we recover for you. Contact us here.
DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The facts described above are drawn from the complaint filed in Osburn v. Laird Noller Automotive, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-2596, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, and represent allegations that have not yet been proven in court. Every legal situation is unique. Contact our office for a consultation regarding your specific circumstances. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This content may be considered attorney advertising under applicable rules.
