Lamborghini Financial Services sues London mayor for repossession of 2019 Urus tied to $60,044.56 debt

Lamborghini Financial Services, Inc. filed suit in Laurel County Circuit Court against London Mayor Randall Weddle, asking the court to order the repossession of a 2019 Lamborghini Urus and to enter a judgment for $60,044.56, according to a complaint reported by LEX 18 on July 7, 2026.

The company’s filing, dated in the court record as filed July 6, states that Lamborghini Financial Services holds a security interest in the Urus under what it describes as a Retail Installment Sale Contract. The complaint alleges that Weddle defaulted on required payments, triggering what the filing characterizes as acceleration of the loan balance, making the entire amount due.

In the complaint, Lamborghini Financial Services says the vehicle is being withheld by Weddle in a manner it contends is inconsistent with the company’s security interest. The company is seeking immediate possession of the Urus, framing the request as necessary to protect its collateral rights under the contract.

Along with repossession, the complaint asks the court to award monetary relief including $60,044.56 plus interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees. The filing also requests that the court retain jurisdiction to determine whether there is any remaining deficiency after the vehicle’s disposition.

The lawsuit is being handled through the Laurel County Circuit Court docket, where the parties will proceed with the case under Kentucky civil procedure. Until the court resolves the matter, the request for repossession and any eventual judgment remains pending.

London, a city in Laurel County, is not named as a party in the reported description of the case. Because the defendant is the city’s mayor, the litigation raises questions of how and when the vehicle in question could be retrieved, and whether any related expenditures or legal costs could be a matter of public record depending on how the city addresses representation and administrative coordination.

Neither the complaint’s allegations nor the company’s requested remedies reflect a final determination by the court. The case will turn on what the parties can prove about the existence and terms of the contract, the alleged default, and the company’s entitlement to the relief it seeks under Kentucky law and the parties’ agreement.