|
Case No. 80AP-881 The Court of Appeals of
Franklin County, Ohio
In Ricart Ford, Inc. v. John Zizek, Mr. Fred Ricart was
ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages for fraud,
invasion
of privacy and violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
Mr. Ricart was found guilty of using altered documents in
support of his legal claim against Mr. Zizek regarding a disputed
car deal and was admonished by the judge. In addition, Mr. Ricart
"forced his way into Zizek’s home frightening his three
children and the babysitter" Mr. Zizek was also the
recipient of harassing and threatening phone calls believed to be
from Ricart.
Ricart-Zizek Court
file
Case No. 92CVH02-1153 Common Pleas Court, Franklin Co.
Ohio
State of Ohio, Lee Fisher, Attorney General v. Ricart Ford, Inc.
Ricart Ford, Inc. dba Ricart Mitsubishi, Ricart Isuzu, Ricart
Nissan, Inc. Ricart Jeep-Eagle, Vanland, Ricart Westowne, and Fred
Ricart, Individually.
The Ohio Attorney General found that Ricart
Automotive, Inc. habitually violated 22 types of violations,
numerous times, including everything from violating the Truth-In-Lending
Act, Fraudulent Advertising, Unconscionable
Sales Practices and Deceptive Consumer sales
It is also known that Ricart ignored Cease and Desist Orders from
the Ohio Attorney General’s Consumer Frauds & Crimes Section.
Ricart ordered to pay fines, damages and court costs. Read the
case
Lee Fisher vs Ricart.
Case No. C19203-46 Assurance of Voluntary compliance.
Ricart signed an Assurance of Voluntary
Compliance agreement with the State of Ohio. Pursuant to an
investigation believed that Ricart Automotive violated Consumer
Sales Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code section 1345.01 et. seq.
. Ricart Automotive ignored a Cease and Desist Order
regarding their practices on or about October 1, 1991. Read
the file.
C19203-46 Assurance of voluntary Compliance.
Case No. C1 92 0224 Assurance of voluntary compliance.
Ricart Automotive signed another Assurance
of Voluntary Compliance agreement with the Ohio Attorney
General. Ricart Automotive, Inc. agreed to comply with R.C. 1345.02
(A); O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B) (27); O.A.C. 109:4-3-16)B) (1); O.A.C.
109:4-3-02(A) (1); and R.C. 1345.02 (B) (8). This agreement was
signed September 2, 1993 with the understanding that voluntary
compliance was for a period of 5 years. Ricart Automotive, Inc. has
repeatedly violated this agreement with the State of Ohio both prior
to, and after the expiration of said agreement. It went uninforced
by Betty Montgomery in exchange for large campaign contributions.
C1 92 0224 Assurance of voluntary compliance.
Current Class Actions
Class Action #1
Violette, et al., vs. P.A.Days & Rhett Ricart. Southern District
of Ohio; Eastern Division. (Theft Gard scam, failure to deliver
title and others)
Claims: 1) Violating Truth In Lending Act. 2) Violating Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act. 3) Violating Ohio Retail Installment
Sales Act. 4) Unjust Enrichment. 5) Breach of Contract. 6) Breach of
Warranty.
Sales Manager deposition in this case.
Judge Sargus Certifies case. 80,000 affected.
Class Action #2 Stroop,
et. al., vs. Ricart Properties. Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas.
Claims: 1) Violating Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. 2) Breach of
Contract. 3) Fraud.
Class Action #3 Brown, et.
al., vs. P.A. Days and Central Ohio Credit Corp. Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court.
Claims: 1) Violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. 2)
Violations of The Truth In Lending Act. 3) Violation of Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act. 4) Violation of FTC used Car Sticker Rule. 5)
Fraud and Deceit. 6) Violations of the Consumer Act.
Class Action #4 Bishop, et.
al., vs. P.A. Days. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.
Claims: 1) Violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. 2)
Violation of the Motor Vehicle Repair Rule. 3) Violation of Used Car
Window Sticker Rule. 4) Violation of the Motor Vehicles Sales Rule.
5) Violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. 6) Violation of the
Truth In Lending Act. 7) Fraud and Deceit.
Class Action #5 Ashe, et.
al., vs. P.A. Days and Central Ohio Credit Corp. Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court.
Claims: 1)Price gouging & unfair and deceptive trade practices.
2) Violating Truth in Lending Act. 3) Violating Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act. 4) Violating FTC Used Car Sticker Rule. Violation of
the Consumer Act.
Class Action #6 Filed in Montgomery County
Court. PDF up soon!
Class Action #7 Should be filed within the
next few days!
Class Action #8 Document review. Potential
plaintiffs interview.
Additional class actions forthcoming! Shop at Ricart or their
PayDays operation?
They're
Stealin!!!
|
