Wilson Ochar v. Lentegrity, et al.

2-10 i. Table of Citations: Citations will appear in the standard Joint Appendix format and the record-page number (e.g., “J.A.1”) b. List of Parties 11 c. Corporate Disclosure ................................ 11 d. Related Cases 11-12 e. Table of Contents ................ 12 f. Appendix to Index 12 g. Table of Authorities 14-16 h. Opinions Below ........................................... 16-17 i. Jurisdiction 17-18 j. Constitutional & Statutory Provisions Involved.. 18-20 k. Statement of the Case 20-34 l. Reasons for Granting the Writ 34-37 m. Conclusion 37-38 Certificate of Service 39 Certificate of Compliance ...40 Local Rule Certification ;.................41 Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument 42 a.) QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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