Dallas Dealership Faces Scrutiny Over Disputed Repossessions
A Dallas used-car dealership remains under scrutiny following allegations that its owner repeatedly repossessed vehicles under questionable circumstances, leaving customers fighting to recover vehicles they say they had legally purchased. The case highlights the distinction between a legitimate repossession following a contractual default and an alleged unlawful taking of property.
According to an October 8 report by FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth, Dallas police issued a felony theft arrest warrant in April 2025 for Rafat Abu Alfilat, owner of 101 Financial, LLC, a dealership operating near Joe Field Road and Harry Hines Boulevard. Investigators allege that vehicles valued at a total of $206,941.75 were involved in the reported incidents. An arrest warrant also alleged aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a separate confrontation involving a customer seeking the return of a repossessed vehicle. The allegations have not been established as proven criminal conduct.
One case involves Jaszmyne and Billy Lyons, who purchased a 2019 Tesla valued at approximately $18,200 in March 2025, putting $5,000 down. The dealership uses in-house financing, meaning it provides the financing rather than relying on an outside lender. According to the arrest warrant described by FOX 4, the Tesla was reported repossessed over an alleged insurance violation. Police reportedly determined that the customer had valid insurance and had supplied documentation supporting that coverage.
The couple said they initially believed the vehicle had been stolen. When they attempted to retrieve it, they alleged that the dealership threatened to have the customer criminally trespassed from the property. A detective subsequently discovered that the Tesla had been reported as repossessed six separate times within one year. The arrest warrant described an alleged pattern involving multiple complainants.
The dealership disputes the allegations. Abu Alfilat told FOX 4 he believes the disputes are civil matters rather than criminal cases. Regional manager Kendral Pickett said customers were upset because their vehicles had been recovered under the dealership’s strict financing agreements. The dealership maintains that its contracts support its actions and argues that it has been unfairly targeted.
The investigation has also raised questions about regulatory oversight. According to FOX 4, the dealership’s license remains active, despite a police affidavit referencing more than 27 complaints concerning repossessions. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it has active cases involving the licensee and said it may impose civil penalties or other sanctions if violations are substantiated. Dallas police said formal charges were still pending as additional complaints were investigated, while the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office confirmed the matter was under review for possible prosecution.
The case also illustrates an important distinction under Texas law. Dealers and creditors can generally repossess vehicles without advance notice when legally entitled to do so, including when a financing agreement’s insurance requirements have not been met. But the existence of a financing contract does not automatically establish that every repossession is lawful. Texas consumer protection authorities identify illegal repossession as a potentially unlawful collection practice, and the facts surrounding each recovery remain critical.
The Dallas investigation remains unresolved, and the allegations should not be treated as findings of guilt. But it serves as a reminder that the authority to repossess is not unlimited. A valid recovery depends on the facts, the governing agreement and the law—not simply on a creditor’s decision to send someone after a vehicle.
