The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that an arbitrator who awarded nearly $50,000 to a woman who claimed a car dealership violated the Truth in Lending Act did not close the door to new evidence in the case. The Second Circuit was also highly critical of an attorney for the dealership.

In a three-page ruling Wednesday, the Second Circuit wrote, "Although the record is not clear enough to show that ABW [A Better Way Wholesale Autos] filed its frivolous challenge simply to delay execution of the judgment, the record does not require the contrary conclusion."

At issue for the Second Circuit was whether arbitrator Walter Kocher improperly closed the hearing to further evidence in the case, which involved a vehicle purchased by New Haven resident Karen Dixon from the Naugatuck-based auto shop, which she said improperly repossessed the car. The Second Circuit was not asked to vacate a $49,616 arbitration award given to Dixon, which the dealer failed to pay.

The Second Circuit also had strong words for attorney Kenneth A. Votre, owner of Votre & Associates in Ridgefield.

"There is serious doubt as to whether ABW has acted in good faith in its litigation strategy," the Second Circuit wrote. Three judges on the Second Circuit also mandated that Votre "is ordered to show cause why disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed on him." The Second Circuit wrote that "Votre appears to have repeated transgressions specifically identified by the district court [of Connecticut]." These included that "Votre otherwise repeatedly and misleadingly claims that the interim award closed evidence in the case." Votre was not available for comment Thursday.

The original complaint in the case against ABW was filed in U.S. District Court in May 2015. In that case, U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson sided with the arbitrator's award to Dixon.

The original 14-page lawsuit maintains that Dixon purchased a 2007 Chrysler Aspen from ABW, but that the dealership mislead her on numerous occasions and violated, among other things, the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Soon after she got her car, the lawsuit alleges, it was improperly repossessed by the auto dealership.

In October 2014, Dixon expressed interest in purchasing a car via financing. The lawsuit states ABW engaged in "illegal, unfair and deceptive actions," including telling her that she was required to purchase a GAP addendum as a condition of her credit approval. Dixon was not actually required to purchase the GAP addendum, nor was she required by the bank to purchase a contract for oil changes for life, for almost $1,700, according to Daniel S. Blinn, one of her attorneys.