Carrio Motor Cars Lawsuit: Federal, State, and Bankruptcy Cases

Three known lawsuits have been filed against Carrio Motor Cars, the Lauderhill, Florida used exotic car dealership: a federal consumer fraud case in the Southern District of Florida, a breach of contract case in New York state court, and a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in North Carolina. None reached a trial verdict. Each Carrio Motor Cars lawsuit ended in voluntary dismissal, discontinuance, or a negotiated settlement, and the dealership remains active with a Florida dealer license valid through April 2027.¹

The Federal Fraud Case: Sam v. Carrio Motor Cars

The most detailed suit against the dealership was filed on January 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Eric Sam and Yolanda Satemya Wright sued Carrio Motor Cars, Inc., Automotive Group Enterprises, Inc., and Jonathan Bonanno, described in the complaint as a broker and agent for the two corporate entities.²

The plaintiffs alleged what consumer advocates sometimes call a “yo-yo” or “spot delivery” scam involving a 2021 Rolls-Royce Cullinan. According to the complaint, Bonanno guaranteed credit approval regardless of the buyers’ credit history, they signed a contract and put down $150,000, and the dealership later claimed the financing had fallen through. The buyers were then allegedly forced to sign a new contract with a $225,000 down payment, after which the vehicle was repossessed with police assistance and without proper legal procedures.³

The complaint also accused the dealership of misrepresenting the vehicle’s mileage, failing to provide required disclosures, and never sending adverse action notices after denying credit. It alleged that Bonanno added a $50,000 personal commission to the sale price without disclosure and sent harassing text messages mocking the plaintiffs’ financial situation.³

Nine counts were asserted, including fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The plaintiffs sought actual and punitive damages.³

The case never reached a ruling on the merits. About three weeks after filing, on February 2, 2024, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, reserving the right to refile. Judge Raag Singhal formally closed the matter on February 5, 2024.²

The New York Contract Dispute: Linn v. Carrio Motor Cars

In May 2025, David Linn filed a breach of contract and declaratory judgment action in Westchester County Supreme Court against Carrio Motor Cars and Ferrari Financial Services. The complaint alleged that the dealership “materially breached a contract to purchase a vehicle from him.” Court exhibits identified the vehicle as a Ferrari LaFerrari with chassis number 207190, a rare and extremely valuable car.⁴

An amended complaint and an exhibit referencing the vehicle were filed on May 16, 2025. Available records do not disclose the contract price or the specific damages Linn sought. The case was short-lived. A notice of discontinuance was filed on June 13, 2025, and the matter was formally marked discontinued after a preliminary hearing on July 11, 2025, before Judge Nancy Quinn Koba.⁴

The Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

Carrio Motor Cars was also named as a defendant in an adversary proceeding brought by Chapter 7 trustee James B. Angell in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The action, case number 5:25-ap-00012, was connected to bankruptcy case 5:23-bk-00222 and alleged fraudulent transfer under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The trustee sought to recover money or property transferred to Carrio Motor Cars and Automotive Group Enterprises.⁵

The parties negotiated a compromise. The trustee filed a motion to approve settlement on August 1, 2025. Judge David M. Warren granted the motion on September 11, 2025, and a stipulation of dismissal was filed on October 1, 2025, closing the case the next day. The terms were not publicly detailed in the available docket.⁵

Consumer Complaints Outside the Courtroom

Beyond the three lawsuits, the dealership has accumulated complaints on the Better Business Bureau and car review platforms that describe a recurring pattern. The allegations sort into three categories.

Undisclosed Damage and Misrepresentation

Buyers have reported vehicles arriving in materially worse condition than described. One customer said a car represented as having “no deficiencies” arrived with large paint flakes, scratches into bare metal, broken interior switches, fuel leaks, rust, and torn leather. Another said a Lamborghini required bumper and rocker panel repairs from a prior accident that had not been disclosed, along with faulty speed sensors and a check engine light.⁶ BBB complaints describe vehicles received with broken sunroofs, missing caliper and lug bolts, and signs of long-term water damage or corrosion.⁷

Pricing, Financing, and Title Problems

Customers have described being charged above advertised prices without advance disclosure. One BBB complaint reported a $10,000 overcharge that the dealership later called a “lender fee.” Others cited hidden costs in financing contracts, with at least one reviewer warning buyers to scrutinize contracts from an affiliated finance entity called Motorsports Capital Partners.⁷⁶ Multiple complaints describe severe delays or outright failures to provide vehicle titles, leaving buyers unable to register their cars.

Threats Against Critics

Per BBB filings, the dealership has threatened customers with defamation lawsuits over negative reviews or social media posts. In one case, a customer alleged that a $7,000 partial repair refund was conditioned on signing a release with financial penalties reportedly set at $100,000 for a first negative social media post and $250,000 for a second.⁷ The administrator of the enthusiast forum FerrariChat reported that representatives of the dealership sent repeated legal threats demanding removal of a warning thread, sent daily through what he described as a low-cost online legal service and outside the forum’s established procedures for formal legal notices.⁸

Where Things Stand

As of late 2025, all three known lawsuits have been resolved without a trial. Sam was voluntarily dismissed, Linn was discontinued, and the Angell adversary proceeding was settled. The dealership remains an active Florida corporation with a valid dealer license through 2027, and complaints continue to appear on review platforms. At least one customer reviewing the dealership in September 2025 stated that she had initiated legal action over alleged misrepresentation and fraud.⁶

1
Better Business Bureau. Carrio Motor Cars BBB Business Profile
2
CourtListener. Sam v. Carrio Motor Cars Inc.
3
Internet Archive. Sam v. Carrio Motor Cars Complaint
4
Trellis Law. Linn David v. Carrio Motor Cars Et Al
5
PACER Monitor. Angell Trustee v. Carrio Motor Cars Inc.
6
Cars.com. Carrio Motor Cars Dealer Reviews
7
Better Business Bureau. Carrio Motor Cars BBB Complaints
8
FerrariChat. Warning Carrio Motor Cars – Do Not Buy From Them