Lima, Ohio – After having her car repossessed by a dealership, a woman found an unusual way to react.
Tia McClairy bought her vehicle from Taylor Kia in Lima back in February 2024. She signed some financial agreements, which included a clause stating any legal disputes would go to arbitration, as per court records.
With assistance from a finance manager, she applied for funding through a global lending service and managed to secure a loan that matched her needs.
According to the documents, she took home a 2022 Kia K5, but later, GLS, the lending service, determined that her income wasn’t adequate for the loan. Consequently, in March, the dealership took back the car.
When McClairy found out that “Taylor Kia of Lima” was no longer registered due to a failure by Taylor Cadillac to renew the name, she decided to take action. She registered the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” under her own name.
She then sent the dealership a cease-and-desist letter to notify them about this registration.
Next, she filed a complaint against both Taylor Cadillac—who opened the Kia dealership in 2012—and the lending company, alleging violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. A few months later, both entities filed to compel arbitration, referencing the agreement McClairy had signed.
In October 2024, the court approved Taylor Cadillac’s request for arbitration, effectively dismissing her case without prejudice, according to court documents.
Later that month, McClairy sued again, asserting that her signature was obtained for the arbitration agreement without her knowledge. She claimed that the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” was invalid since it wasn’t registered. Furthermore, she argued that the arbitration agreement should not apply to her newly registered version of the name.
Judge John R. Willamowski determined that McClairy was aware she had signed the arbitration agreement, confirming that it applied to her and the “Taylor Automotive Group, including Taylor Cadillac…”
However, he noted that issues regarding the name “Taylor Kia of Lima” did not fit into the arbitration agreement framework since they weren’t directly related to the vehicle purchase.
“[T]his claim should not have been dismissed and sent to arbitration,” Willamowski remarked.
The judge sent the matter back to the court for additional proceedings. Both Judge Juergen A. Waldick and Judge William R. Zimmerman concurred with this decision.
A scheduling meeting has been set for August 18th to decide on the next steps in the case.
