At the center of the dispute is a type of lease structure that many consumers rarely encounter. The disagreement appears to hinge on whether the vehicle was financed under a standard closed-end lease or a less common open-end lease, where customers can be responsible for differences in vehicle value after resale.
Carmela, a New York City hair stylist who posts under the handle @carmelaa666, explained in a TikTok video that she leased a new Jeep through Stellantis on a 36-month agreement. She said the lease expires on June 6 and claimed she was charged for 37 months instead of 36.
In the video, she described a conversation with a representative who allegedly told her the returned vehicle would be sent to auction after the lease ended. If the Jeep sold for less than its projected value, she said she would be responsible for paying the difference.
Dispute Centers on What Kind of Lease Was Signed
Carmela said she understood she could still face charges for excess mileage, wear and tear, and a fee connected to not leasing another Jeep. What surprised her was the suggestion that she would also absorb losses tied to the vehicle’s resale value.
“If the bank values the car at $35,000, and we bring it to auction, once I’m done with my contract, with my lease, and they only sell it for $30,000, you owe that $5,000, because the bank can’t lose out on money,” she said in the TikTok clip.
The explanation led many commenters to focus on the distinction between open-end and closed-end leases. According to Motor1, most consumer vehicle leases in the United States are closed-end agreements. Under those contracts, the leasing company assumes the risk if the car’s value drops more than expected by the end of the term.
Open-end leases function differently. In those agreements, the customer can be required to pay the difference between the estimated residual value and the amount the vehicle actually brings in after resale. Such arrangements are more commonly associated with commercial fleets than individual retail customers.
Industry Commenters Questioned the Situation
The comment section beneath Carmela’s video filled with reactions from users identifying themselves as dealership employees, lease brokers, or former Jeep workers. Several said the situation did not sound like a standard consumer lease return.
“This is not a lease contract. Who are you banking with?” wrote a commenter identified as gabbycastelli, who claimed to have previously worked for Jeep. After Carmela answered “Stellantis,” the commenter replied: “You need to call Stellantis immediately because this sounds like they are repoing you.”
Another user, dealcloser1, described what he considered the normal lease-end process. “As long as you completed your full term then you are good to drop it off to any Jeep dealer,” the commenter wrote. The user added that customers are generally responsible only for mileage overages, damage, wear and tear, or missing keys.
One commenter named Joel offered another explanation. “If the lease is an open end lease, you would be responsible for that amount. A typical lease is a closed end lease where you wouldn’t be responsible for that amount. Check to see if the lease is open ended.”
Another response was shorter and more direct: “No this is not a standard lease. Girl did you sign this?”
Missing Contract Added to the Confusion
One of the details that drew the most attention involved Carmela’s attempt to obtain a copy of her lease agreement. She said in the comments that she contacted the bank to request the contract but was allegedly told they “couldn’t send me a new one.”
Without access to the paperwork, she said she could not determine whether the lease was structured as open-end or closed-end.
According to Stellantis Financial Services’ lease-end page, customers reaching the end of a lease are offered three options: replace the vehicle, purchase it, or return it to a Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, or Alfa Romeo dealership while paying a $395 disposition fee. The information referenced in the report did not mention responsibility for auction shortfalls.
Another commenter, identified as a paralegal under the name Rosetsfaves, advised Carmela to “call a local attorney that specializes in dealer fraud to review your contract.”
Motor1 reported that it contacted both Carmela and Stellantis by email regarding the situation and stated that it would update the story if either side responded.
