Acker v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
William Wade Acker v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation; Bridgecrest Lending Auto Securitization Trust 2024-4; Computershare Trust Company, N.A.; and Bridgecrest Auto Funding, LLC
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01340
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Acker v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed all claims brought by William Wade Acker after finding that his attempt to pay off a car loan using a self-created 'Demand Draft' — a fake payment document — had no legal validity, and that none of his eight claims against the lender had any basis in law.
Individual borrowers who attempt to use fictitious or legally invalid payment instruments — sometimes associated with 'sovereign citizen' theories — to satisfy legitimate loan obligations. Also relevant to anyone asserting claims related to loan securitization or credit reporting defamation without adequate factual support.
What happened
In Acker v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, William Wade Acker, representing himself, sued Bridgecrest and related companies after they refused to accept a document he called a 'Demand Draft' as full payment of a roughly $50,000 car loan he had taken out through Carvana. The document was not real money, a check, or any recognized form of payment — it purported to draw funds from a U.S. government account under a federal statute, a theory courts have repeatedly rejected as legally worthless. Bridgecrest refused the document, told Acker he still owed the full loan balance, and Acker responded by filing eight claims in Minnesota state court, which Defendants then moved to federal court.
Acker's lawsuit included claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, recoupment, defamation, fraudulent concealment, failure to release the lien on his car, and a challenge to the validity of the security interest. His core argument was that the Demand Draft paid off his debt in full and that Bridgecrest's securitization of his loan — the practice of bundling loans into financial products — was somehow improper or fraudulent. He also alleged that Bridgecrest had harmed his credit through defamatory reporting.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all of Acker's claims with prejudice, meaning Acker cannot refile them. The court found that the Demand Draft was not valid currency and that the legal theory behind it — sometimes associated with 'sovereign citizen' arguments — has been consistently rejected by federal courts as frivolous. The court further found that securitization of a debt is legal and does not relieve a borrower of the obligation to repay, that Acker's defamation claim was governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act but lacked the required factual allegations, and that recoupment is a legal defense rather than a claim a plaintiff can bring on its own.
The detailed version
This case arises from a dispute over a car loan. In November 2024, plaintiff William Wade Acker purchased a vehicle through Carvana LLC, financing it through Bridgecrest. In December 2024, Acker sent Defendants a letter enclosing a document he called a 'Demand Draft,' which he claimed constituted payment in full of approximately $50,094.88. The document purported to draw funds from a United States government account pursuant to 50 U.S. Code § 4305(b)(2) and (b)(3). It was not a check, cash, or any conventional form of payment. Bridgecrest refused the document and informed Acker that he remained bound by his retail installment contract and owed the full outstanding balance.
Acker filed suit in Washington County (Minnesota) District Court in February 2025, asserting eight claims: unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, recoupment, defamation, fraudulent concealment, failure to release lien, and invalid security interest. Defendants removed the case to federal court on April 9, 2025, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), asserting federal question jurisdiction. Defendants then moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Acker also filed a Motion to Supplement Pleadings, which the court granted and considered alongside the original complaint.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan applied the same legal standard used for motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Acker, but not accepting conclusory legal statements dressed up as factual allegations. The court also noted its obligation to construe pro se (self-represented) filings liberally, while acknowledging that courts are not required to repeatedly entertain 'baseless filings, particularly those of the sovereign citizen fashion.'
The court dismissed each claim:
1. Unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and failure to release lien: All three depend on the premise that the Demand Draft was valid payment. The court found it was not — describing it as an 'unintelligible document' that does not qualify as a valid negotiable instrument under any recognized legal standard. Courts across the country have consistently rejected such documents as frivolous.
2. Invalid security interest, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment: Acker argued that Bridgecrest failed to disclose that his loan would be securitized (bundled with other loans into an investment product), and that this meant he never validly granted a security interest in the vehicle. The court rejected this, finding that securitization is a legal and common practice, that there is no legal requirement to disclose it to borrowers, and that securitization does not relieve a borrower of the duty to repay.
3. Defamation: The court found this claim is preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal law governing credit reporting. To state a claim under the FCRA, a plaintiff must allege that the reported information is inaccurate and must show that he notified a consumer reporting agency (CRA) of the inaccuracy and that the furnisher (here, Bridgecrest) failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Acker made neither allegation, so the defamation claim failed.
4. Recoupment: The court found that recoupment is a defensive legal tool used to reduce an opposing party's recovery in a lawsuit — it is not an independent affirmative claim a plaintiff can assert.
The court granted Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Acker's complaint with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.