Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(a) - The questions presented for review:

1. HERE COMES NOW, Wilson Ochar, the petitioner in this case, hereby submits the following petition for writ of certiorari with the following presented questions for review pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(a) - Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari:

2. First, on June 31, 2024, plaintiff Wilson Ochar alleged that Merlex Auto Group and Lentegity LLC engaged in predatory lending by using a "price-padding" scheme to inflate a vehicle's purchase price. This practice allegedly circumvented Virginia's 36% interest rate cap, resulting in a loan with a total interest exceeding the state-imposed limit: (J.A. 15-79)

a. Does the practice of "price padding " in vehicle financing, which adds hidden fees to the purchase price, violate state usury laws like Virginia Code § 6.2-1520 Rate of interest; late charges; processing fees?

b. Does Virginia Code § 6.2-1520, which caps the annual interest rate for certain loans at 36%, prohibit the collection of total interest that exceeds the statutory cap when aggregated over the life of the loan?

c. Does a lender's practice of adding fees to a vehicle's purchase price to circumvent state interest rate caps constitute a violation of state or federal law?

d. Did the lower court err in its interpretation of Virginia Code § 6.2-1520 regarding the total interest allowed on a loan over its duration?

3. Secondly, the plaintiff contacted Merlex Auto Group and Lentegrity via email, but a phone call with Lentegrity ended with the company refusing any billing corrections: (J.A. 20)

a. Did the defendants ' failure to investigate the plaintiff 's complaint about his billing error, miscalculation of the plaintiffs ' payment of interest and principal balance, and continuing to impose terms and conditions of the auto loan that were not agreed upon all of which lead to the violation of the 15 U.S.C. § 1666.3 (B) (1) - Correction of billing errors?

4. Thirdly, upon review, the plaintiff discovered that both defendants are Delaware companies, engaged in predatory lending. Lentegity, though unlicensed to operate in Virginia, improperly issued the loan and then, without authorization, reported itself as the lender to credit bureaus, a deceptive practice that violates federal and state laws. (J.A. 194-195)

a. Did Merlex Auto Group violate 15 U.S. Code § 1605 (Determination of finance charge) by not disclosing Lentegrity LLC as a third-party closing agent, who charged closing costs as a finance charge without providing debt collection services?

b. Is Lentegrity LLC in violation of Virginia Code § 6.2-2201 - License required for issuing a motor vehicle title loan without proper licensing?

c. Did Merlex Auto Group violate Virginia Code § 6.2-2215 - Required and prohibited business methods by charging the plaintiff a finance charge for a loan disbursed by the same auto dealer selling the vehicle, constituting an unfair and deceptive business practice?

5. Fourthly, despite diligent efforts to serve a summons, Lentegrity failed to appear because its provided address was a UPS store thus violating 18 U.S.C.

Question not identified.