Legal: Typo In Nissan Lease Return Papers Ruling Overturned

A single-character typo and an unscheduled lease return have escalated into a multi-year legal battle between two lessees and Nissan’s finance arm, underscoring how procedural missteps and data entry errors can have lasting impacts on consumer credit.

As reported in Automotive News, according to a May 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Andrew and Michael Ritz can proceed with their lawsuit against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. (NMAC) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), reversing an earlier district court decision that dismissed the case. The appellate court found sufficient evidence for a jury to potentially conclude that NMAC inaccurately reported the plaintiffs’ lease as delinquent—despite internal acknowledgment that no balance was owed.

The dispute dates back to August 2019, when the Ritzes returned their leased 2017 Nissan Sentra on the date specified in their lease agreement. However, they did so without scheduling a formal appointment or completing the federally mandated odometer disclosure at the time of drop-off. The dealership—Freehold Nissan, then part of PSD Automotive Group—refused to formally process the return, citing the missing documentation and lack of a lease-return inspection. The plaintiffs left the vehicle on site and informed NMAC’s customer service that the car had been returned.

Despite confirming the vehicle’s drop-off shortly afterward, NMAC treated the lease as unresolved due to the lack of a signed odometer statement. It subsequently billed the Ritzes for another monthly lease payment of $181.51 and warned of further charges. The plaintiffs returned to the dealership in September 2019 to complete the odometer form and again disputed the charges with NMAC.

Crucially, internal communications within NMAC show that customer service agents attempted to correct the record with the company’s credit reporting department. However, those efforts were unsuccessful due to a VIN mismatch—a typographical error by the dealership that substituted a “9” for an “N.” As a result, the delinquency remained on the Ritzes’ credit histories for years.

In 2020, the Ritzes filed suit against NMAC, claiming the lender had violated the FCRA by failing to ensure the accuracy of its credit reporting. NMAC argued that its reporting was legally sound because the lease was technically incomplete at the time of return. In 2023, a district court judge agreed, stating that no false information had been communicated to credit bureaus and that the dispute centered on contractual interpretation, not factual inaccuracy.

But the 3rd Circuit disagreed. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate panel said the case should not have been dismissed at summary judgment. The judges emphasized that information may still be deemed “inaccurate” under the FCRA if it is misleading or harmful, even if technically correct. They pointed to the fact that NMAC’s own customer service division had determined the Ritzes did not owe additional payments, yet the negative credit report persisted solely due to an internal procedural breakdown triggered by a dealership error.

The case has now been returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where mediation between the parties has been ordered. Attorneys for the Ritzes argue that consumers should not bear the credit consequences of behind-the-scenes miscommunication between a dealer and a lender—especially when the lender internally agreed that no delinquency existed.

The implications extend beyond this individual case. At its core, the dispute highlights vulnerabilities in lease return processing and the challenges in correcting credit reports once automated systems are in motion. It also raises broader questions about when legal disputes over contract terms—such as how a vehicle must be returned—cross the line into credit report inaccuracies under federal law.

While NMAC has declined to comment on pending litigation, the outcome of this case could set an important precedent for how courts interpret "accuracy" in credit reporting disputes where both factual and procedural elements are involved. It also serves as a reminder to dealers, lenders, and consumers alike of the importance of meticulous documentation—and what can go wrong when even a single character is mistyped.

The truth is, all this could have been avoided if the customer had done things properly in the beginning by going through the dealership’s lease return process and completing the paperwork like they should have.