Prestige Financial Services, the Utah-based subprime auto lender owned by the Larry H. Miller Company, has been involved in lawsuits on two sides: it has sued borrowers for deficiency balances after repossessing their vehicles, and it has been sued by consumers alleging fraud, unfair collection practices, and deceptive sales tactics by the dealers it finances. In November 2025, Prestige stopped writing new loans and shifted to servicing its existing $1.2 billion portfolio, but current borrowers remain bound to their original contract terms.1Auto Finance News. Prestige Financial Services Stops Originations
Consumer Lawsuits Filed Against Prestige
Lopez v. GMT Auto Sales and Prestige Financial Services
In 2019, Bertha Lopez and Anastacio Ramos bought a vehicle from GMT Auto Sales in St. Louis, traded in their old car, and drove the new one home. The dealership later told them the loan had not been finalized and repossessed the new vehicle, even though it had already sold the trade-in. Lopez sued both GMT and Prestige, the lender behind the deal, alleging fraud, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and conversion. She called it an unlawful “yo-yo” or “spot delivery” sale: a dealer lets a buyer leave with a car before financing is secured, then pressures them into worse terms or takes the car back.2Penn State Arbitration Law Review. In Missouri, High-Pressure Yo-Yo Car Sales Not Illegal, but Too Much Litigation Can Lead to Waiver of Arbitration Rights
GMT and Prestige moved to force the dispute into arbitration, citing clauses in the contracts Lopez had signed. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District agreed Lopez had signed valid arbitration agreements but held that GMT had waived the right to enforce them by litigating in court for 17 months, including bringing in a third-party defendant, pursuing discovery disputes, and filing summary judgment motions. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework from Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the court found the dealership’s conduct was fundamentally inconsistent with any intent to arbitrate.3Findlaw. Lopez v. GMT Auto Sales, Inc.
Brooks v. Prestige Financial Services
In 2011, Naureen Brooks sued Prestige in Maryland, alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and state common law tied to the company’s collection conduct on a defaulted loan for a 2005 Honda Accord. Brooks had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy shortly before bringing the case. Prestige asked the court to dismiss on standing grounds, arguing the claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate, or to stay the case pending the bankruptcy. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, through Judge Alexander Williams Jr., denied both requests, ruling that Chapter 13 debtors have standing to pursue pre-petition claims on behalf of the estate and that a stay would not serve judicial economy. Brooks’s claims were allowed to proceed.4CaseMine. Brooks v. Prestige Financial Services, Inc.
Deficiency Lawsuits Prestige Has Filed Against Borrowers
When a borrower defaults and Prestige repossesses and sells the car for less than the loan balance, the company has pursued the shortfall in court. Two reported cases show how these suits unfold and where borrowers have found defenses.
In Prestige Financial Services Inc. v. Amy T. Bostic, filed in Louisiana’s 24th Judicial District Court in July 2014, Prestige sued a borrower who had voluntarily surrendered her vehicle after about a year of payments. Prestige had originally financed $26,037.66 in September 2012. After auctioning the car for a net of $4,164, the company sought $12,420.09 for breach of contract.5Legal Newsline. Woman Sued for Over $12K After Vehicle Repossessed
The more consequential ruling came in Scott v. Prestige Financial Services, Inc., decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals in April 2018. Prestige had sued Constance Scott for a deficiency balance of $18,326.09 and filed the case as a “suit on account,” a Georgia procedural classification that requires the defendant to file a verified, sworn answer. Scott’s response was unverified, and the trial court struck it and entered a default judgment for Prestige.6Findlaw. Scott v. Prestige Financial Services, Inc.
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that a retail installment contract for a car is not an “open account” and cannot be collected through the suit-on-account procedure. The court said retail installment contracts carry their own remedies, including repossession, and the lender must prove compliance with Georgia’s deficiency statute. That means sending required notices within ten days of repossession and showing that the vehicle sale was commercially reasonable. Because Prestige had misclassified the suit, the verification requirement did not apply to Scott’s answer, and the default judgment was thrown out. The case went back for further proceedings in which Prestige would have to prove it had followed those statutory steps.7vLex. Scott v. Prestige Fin. Servs., Inc., 345 Ga. App. 530
For a borrower sued for a deficiency after repossession, the Scott decision is a reminder that state law typically imposes specific notice and commercial-reasonableness requirements on the lender, and that procedural choices by the lender can be challenged.
Patterns in Consumer Complaints
The Better Business Bureau profile for Prestige Financial Services in Draper, Utah lists 195 complaints over a three-year period, 44 of them closed in the most recent 12 months. Billing issues account for 91 complaints, and service or repair issues account for 56.8BBB. Prestige Financial Services, Inc. Complaints
Several themes recur. Borrowers dispute how Prestige calculates and applies interest, alleging extra payments are not credited to principal and that unauthorized changes to due dates generate late fees and extra interest. Some describe the loan terms as predatory. Others allege Prestige flagged payments as rejected even when bank records showed successful drafts, then used those apparent failures to threaten repossession or demand more money. Borrowers also report difficulty reaching the company by phone and obtaining basic documents such as original contracts, payment histories, and lien releases.8BBB. Prestige Financial Services, Inc. Complaints
Prestige’s responses on the BBB platform follow a consistent script: the company says it has contacted the customer directly by email and declines to share details publicly, citing privacy. Of the 195 complaints, the BBB lists 183 as “Answered” and only 12 as “Resolved.”
What the Shutdown of New Lending Means for Current Borrowers
On November 20, 2025, Prestige stopped accepting new credit applications and ended loan originations after more than 30 years in the subprime auto market. An internal memo stated: “After careful consideration, Prestige has made the decision to stop new originations and will transition into a servicing-only business.” The company said it would fund contracts already in the pipeline through the end of November 2025.9DealershipGuy. Prestige Financial Halts New Loans After 30 Years
The shutdown does not erase existing loans or pending litigation. Borrowers still owe on their contracts and remain subject to the original terms, and Prestige continues to service the portfolio, which stood at $1.2 billion at year-end 2024.1Auto Finance News. Prestige Financial Services Stops Originations President Richard Hyde declined to comment beyond the memo. Industry reporting cited unconfirmed reports of significant layoffs and placed the move against the backdrop of recent shutdowns and bankruptcies among smaller auto finance companies.9DealershipGuy. Prestige Financial Halts New Loans After 30 Years
If you have a loan with Prestige and are facing collection calls, a repossession, or a deficiency suit, the cases above suggest two practical points. State law usually sets strict requirements on how a lender must notice and sell a repossessed vehicle before pursuing a deficiency, and those requirements can be challenged in court. And complaint records show a persistent gap between what Prestige’s billing systems report and what borrowers’ own bank records show, which is worth documenting carefully if you are disputing a charge or a missed payment.