Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co., 77-3550
| Decision Date | 26 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3550,77-3550 |
| Citation | 614 F.2d 1085 |
| Parties | Thomas AUGUSTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARSHALL MOTOR COMPANY and Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John E. Duda, William M. Wohl, Duda, Elk & Wohl, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Andrew J. McLandrich, James P. Conroy, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Cleveland, Ohio, for Marshall Motor Co.
William D. Ginn, David J. Naftzinger, Thompson, Hine & Flory, Cleveland, Ohio, for Ford Motor Credit Co.
Before LIVELY, KEITH and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Augusta, purchased a Ford automobile from a Ford Dealer, appellee Marshall Motor Co. Augusta desired financing of the purchase, which Marshall arranged through appellee Ford Motor Credit Co. Augusta executed an "instalment contract" which was forthwith assigned by Marshall to Ford Credit, and Augusta was shortly thereafter supplied with a payment coupon book by Ford Credit.
Augusta then sued Marshall and Ford Credit, contending that under the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z issued by the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to the Act, Marshall and Ford Credit were required to reveal at the time of the purchase that Ford Credit was a creditor of Augusta and that this was not done. Ford Credit and Marshall contended that Ford Credit, as an assignee of the instalment contract, was not a "creditor" of Augusta within the meaning of the Regulation and that, in any event, Augusta received notice that Ford Credit was a creditor by the very terms of the instalment contract and also by the payment coupon book sent to him by Ford Credit.
Augusta, Ford Credit and Marshall moved for summary judgment, and District Judge Krupansky granted summary judgment in favor of Ford Credit and Marshall and against Augusta. 453 F.Supp. 912. Judge Krupansky did not determine whether Ford Credit, as an assignee, was a "creditor" within the meaning of the Regulation, but he did determine that Augusta received notice that Ford Credit was a creditor by the terms of the instalment contract and also the payment coupon book.
We need not decide whether Ford Credit was, as an assignee, a "creditor" within the meaning of the Regulation and need not decide whether the payment coupon book gave timely notice, if such was required. We determine that Judge Krupansky was correct in holding that the instalment contract itself gave adequate notice of Ford Credit's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank
...found satisfactory in many cases. See, e.g., Sharp v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (7th Cir.1980) 615 F.2d 423, 426; Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co. (6th Cir.1979) 614 F.2d 1085, 1086. Accordingly, we find plaintiff's claim that the bank was not properly identified to be without merit. Accord Frisch......
-
Schmidt v. Avco Corp.
...v. University of Delaware (C.A. 3, 1979), 601 F.2d 76; Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co. (N.D. Ohio 1977), 453 F.Supp. 912, affirmed (C.A. 6, 1979), 614 F.2d 1085; Susman v. Lincoln American Corp. (C.A. 7, 1977), 561 F.2d 86. The critical question under this section is whether there is a confli......
-
Boncyk v. Cavanaugh Motors
...was held not to be required. Id.; accord, Sharp v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 615 F.2d 423, 426 (7th Cir. 1980); Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co., 614 F.2d 1085, 1086 (6th Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court in Ford Motor Credit Company v. Cenance, 101 S.Ct. at 2241-42, held that a statement notifying t......
-
Feinstein v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
...requirement of "adequate representation." Cf. Augusta v. Marshall Motor Co., 453 F.Supp. 912, 919 (N.D.Ohio 1977), aff'd, 614 F.2d 1085 (6th Cir. 1979). Comparable concerns clearly troubled Judge Campilongo in Allshouse v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., No. 742-649 (Cal.Superior Ct., S.F.Ct......