Mercer Trailer Lease – What Happened After They Took My Trailer Back

Fair questions — and trust me, I’ve learned a lot since all this started. I did consult with legal counsel during and after the lease, but unfortunately, when you're an independent contractor on the road, it's not always realistic to have a lawyer on retainer from day one, especially when the contract terms seem routine at the time.

But that’s exactly why I’m speaking up now. These contracts are structured in ways most drivers don’t realize until it’s too late — and I’m in a position to expose that publicly. I’m careful about what I post, and nothing I’m sharing here jeopardizes my legal claims. In fact, public awareness is part of the accountability process.

If Mercer’s practices are lawful, they’ll survive scrutiny. But if they’ve been relying on drivers to stay quiet out of fear, I’m not playing along with that anymore.

 

I appreciate the thoughtful reply — and you’re absolutely right that the trailer lease required the driver to remain a “L/O in good standing.” But that’s exactly the contractual trap I’m talking about. Mercer wrote the lease so that once they terminated the trucking contract, they could claim you were in default on the trailer — even if you tried to keep paying.

That’s what happened to me. I didn’t abandon the lease. I didn’t default in the usual sense. They cut off my ability to make payments by terminating dispatch and refusing to accept further payments — then repossessed the trailer and sued me anyway for the full value and over $60,000 in inflated legal fees. All while using a handwritten dollar figure in a Texas abstract of judgment that no court had ever awarded.

This isn’t just about the lease terms — it’s about abuse of legal process, fraudulent lien filings, and structural coercion. That’s why I filed suit, and why I’m speaking out.

I’m not just venting. I have court records, emails, filings, and I’ve now heard from others in similar positions. If Mercer wants to rely on “you signed the contract,” I’m fine with that — but it cuts both ways. They don’t get to ignore due process and weaponize state court systems to intimidate former drivers.

 

Exactly — it was structured as a lease-purchase agreement. Mercer called it a “lease,” but the contract included a residual buyout at the end that would have transferred full ownership to me once completed. It wasn’t a dollar buyout, but it was clearly set up as a path to ownership.

But here’s the kicker: I paid on that trailer for years, with deductions taken directly from my Mercer settlements. I was almost finished when they abruptly terminated my trucking lease, which also cut off the only mechanism I had to make trailer payments — because the trailer lease required payments through settlement deductions.

So under their system, I had no legal title, no other way to pay, and no ability to recover the trailer, even though I had invested tens of thousands of dollars into it. Then they repossessed it and sued me as if I’d abandoned it, demanding the full value of the trailer and inflated legal fees — after taking the trailer back.

So you're right: legally, I had no title interest yet. But practically? I was being treated like the owner when it came to responsibilities and like a renter when it came to rights. Mercer has it both ways.

That’s part of why I filed suit — because these “lease-purchase” setups are structured in a way that allows the company to extract all the value and still flip liability onto the driver.

 

You're right that a lot of lease-purchase and “rent-to-own” setups are structured to give the lessee zero equity — that’s not in dispute. But that’s exactly why I’m bringing this forward: because these contracts are built to fail for the driver and profit the carrier.

And while I appreciate the “anyone with sense wouldn’t sign” sentiment, let’s be real — a lot of smart, experienced drivers sign these contracts every day because they’re sold the dream of truck ownership, steady freight, and support from a “driver-friendly” carrier. Mercer, in particular, has a reputation for professionalism — until things go sideways.

In my case, the issue wasn’t just the lease terms — it was that Mercer terminated my ability to make payments, then repossessed the trailer, then sued me for the full value plus massive legal fees, after taking the trailer back. They also filed a fraudulent abstract of judgment with a handwritten amount that no court ever awarded.

So yeah, some contracts are designed to be tough — but when companies weaponize the courts and the fine print to extract maximum value from a driver, even after repossession, that’s not just business. That’s systematic exploitation, and it deserves exposure.