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

Dude, you are not a driver. You are an owner. You are in business to haul things. Drivers are not involved with signing anything, and yes, there is a huge difference.

YOU ARE running a high-profile, high liability business, you need one before you start the truck for the first load.

When you start getting into contracts - any contract - you have to have a lawyer. You don't learn things after the problem; they are there so you prevent the problem from happening and yes it costs money.

In this case, the contract is going to be written to the advantage of the company which you are working with for whatever purpose. This is where you get someone who knows how to read the contract, comment on the good and bad for you, the warnings and so on.

Again the company is not going to hand you a win in this case, they are going to hold you to the contract and their Exit is for them.

I would rather pay $5000 or $10k annually and tap them when I need them immediately than to deal with costs that will be expensive, like dealing with going to court, dealing with bills and the downtime that interupts the business, it all adds up.

 

You're not wrong that lease-purchase contracts often give the company a lot of power. And I did read mine. But there’s a difference between acknowledging what's in a contract and endorsing how that contract is enforced — especially when it’s used to create leverage after the fact.

Let’s be clear:

• I didn’t “refuse” to turn in the trailer. Mercer cut off communication and refused further payments. They wanted the trailer back and got it.
  
  
• I didn’t abandon it. They repossessed it and then sued me for the full trailer value — plus over $60,000 in “legal fees”.
  
  
• The legal fees were never awarded by any court — and yet they filed an abstract of judgment in Texas with a handwritten dollar figure, pretending it was official.
  

So yes, I signed the contract. But I also lived up to it for years, paid them regularly, and was near the finish line when they pulled the plug — then used their own termination as a trigger to hit me with the maximum penalties possible.

This isn’t about whether a contract permits one party to abuse the other. It’s about whether that abuse is lawful, ethical, or strategically structured to churn out losses for drivers and gains for the carrier.

I'm not chasing a fart in the wind. I'm holding them accountable — and if you've never been on the receiving end of a legal process designed to break you, I’m glad for you. But don't mistake enforcement for justice.

 

I hear you, and I agree on some of your fundamentals. Yes — once you’re operating as an owner-op, you’re running a business, and yes — contracts need to be read with a lawyer when possible. But here’s where we differ:

Most lease-purchase drivers don’t walk into this industry with $5–10K annually to keep a lawyer on retainer. What they do have is a recruiter, a lease agreement presented as a “path to ownership,” and a company promising partnership — not litigation.

In my case, I didn’t go into this blind. I read the contracts. I understood the risks. What I didn’t anticipate — and what most drivers don’t see coming — is when the company terminates the underlying lease for a vague or false pretext, refuses further payments, takes the trailer back, and then files a fraudulent abstract of judgment with a made-up dollar figure never signed off by a court.

That’s not “getting held to a contract.” That’s using the legal system as a collection weapon. It’s structured so the company can maximize gain after repossession, when you have no more equipment, no income, and no leverage.

This isn’t about sour grapes. It’s about exposing tactics that are designed to cripple independent contractors after years of payments and service. You want to talk business sense? Fine: If you design a contract to create defaults and extract windfall judgments, you're not running a business — you're running a churn machine.

Some of us are done staying quiet about it.

 

Signing a contract is endorsing how that contract is enforced.

Drivers have been pretty vocal about this abusive practice - TTR has ten years of posts about Mercer doing it. Yes, I do think it is abusive - but it's legal.

 

it doesn’t surprise me with Mercer they’re a sneaky, slimy underhanded company… They even got busted try to scam the department of defense on a double dipping Freight bill scandal…

 

Wow — I hadn’t heard about the DOD freight scandal, but I’m not surprised at all. If you have any info or links on that, I’d love to take a look. I’m starting to think what happened to me might be part of a much larger pattern with how Mercer operates — especially when it comes to paper games and billing practices.

Appreciate you chiming in. You’re not the first person to call them out as shady, but double-dipping the Department of Defense? That’s next-level. If they’ll do that to the feds, imagine how they treat drivers once you’re no longer useful to them.

I’ve already filed suit over their trailer lease tactics, and now I’m gathering evidence of other abuses — especially if there’s a track record of this behavior. If you have anything you’re willing to share privately, I’ll keep it confidential.

 

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/23/2001881654/-1/-1/1/171108_MERCER-TRANSPORTATION-CO.PDF

Gibbs got them (NCIS)

 

If you’ve ever watched NCIS, you know the motto: “Trust but verify.” I’ve always loved that show — not just because of the action or the cases, but because it reminds you that things aren’t always what they seem, especially when there are powerful people behind the scenes calling the shots.

That’s exactly how I feel about Mercer Transportation.

Most drivers know Mercer as a carrier with strict policies and an “owner-operator” culture. But what many don’t know is that this same company paid $4.4 million to the Department of Justice to settle allegations of bribery and fraud in connection with government contracts.

That’s not a rumor. That’s a federal case brought by the DOJ, publicly confirmed in this press release:

“Mercer Transportation Company paid $4.4 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations involving bribery of Marine Corps officials at the Albany, Georgia logistics base.”
– U.S. Attorney’s Office, 2017

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/23/2001881654/-1/-1/1/171108_MERCER-TRANSPORTATION-CO.PDF

So let’s be clear:

This is not the first time Mercer has been caught abusing systems for financial gain.

Now fast forward to my own experience — a trailer lease with Mercer that seemed legit at first, but ended with them:

• Terminating my contract without cause,
  
  
• Refusing further payments,
  
  
• Repossessing the trailer,
  
  
• Then suing me for the full value, plus over $60,000 in legal fees,
  
  
• And filing a fraudulent abstract of judgment in a Texas county where I didn’t even live.
  

I thought I was alone until I started digging. I searched Texas court records and found other lawsuits where Mercer used this same trailer lease-to-lawsuit pipeline. Now I believe this is a pattern — not a misunderstanding.

This blog isn’t about revenge.
This is about exposing a system that exploits small business truckers, hides behind legal threats, and pressures drivers into silence.

Mercer may have gotten away with it for a while in Albany, Georgia.
But they’re not getting away with it here.

If you’ve had a similar experience with Mercer — or any other carrier pulling stunts like this — I want to hear from you. Contact me directly or leave a comment. Together, we can compare notes, share documents, and start pushing back.

Because as Gibbs would say: “There are no coincidences.”

 

This is fantastic! I love NCIS. Thanks for the info.

 

So why didn't you verify before you signed the lease agreements?

And for the record it was Regan that said "Trust but verify".