Copley v. Rona Enterprises, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 June 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-2-74-480. |
Citation | 423 F. Supp. 979 |
Parties | Delbert C. COPLEY and Dicie Copley, Plaintiffs, v. RONA ENTERPRISES, INC. and Capital Savings & Loan Co., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Phillip M. Walther, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Joel H. Mirman, Edward F. Chuha, Roland T. Gilbert, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.
This is a civil action brought pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968, known as the Truth in Lending Act, Pub.L. No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146, set out at 1968 U.S.Code and Admin. News, p. 176 et seq., as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e), the United States District Courts have jurisdiction, concurrent with that of "any other court of competent jurisdiction," to adjudicate civil actions brought under the Act within one year of the date of the alleged violation. The parties have submitted certain issues in this case for a determination upon stipulated facts. The questions presented include whether an April 24, 1974, purchase agreement signed by plaintiffs and by defendant Rona Enterprises, Inc. violated the disclosure requirements of the Act, and whether adjudication of the state law claims asserted in this case would be a proper exercise of this Court's pendant jurisdiction.
The stipulations of the parties include the following:
The April 24, 1974, agreement to which plaintiffs and defendant Rona are signatories is styled "Form 100 Purchase Agreement UCC § 2-201." The document provides that "subject to the terms and conditions stated on both sides of this agreement seller defendant Rona agrees to sell and the purchaser plaintiffs Delbert and Dicie Copley agrees to purchase the following described property: a Homette mobile home Model 264114 FRB." Rona signed on a line under which appeared the following language: "Approved, Subject to acceptance of financing by bank or finance company." The first numbered paragraph on the reverse of the document is underlined and contains the following language:
In the event the transaction referred to in this order is not a cash transaction, the purchaser herein before, or at the time of delivery of the trailer, mobilehome or vehicle ordered, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of payment indicated on the face of this order, will either execute a retail installment contract, security agreement, or such other form of agreement as may be required by law. Title to said equipment shall remain in the Seller, until the agreed purchase price therefor is paid in full in cash, or a time payment contract has been executed, and accepted by a bank or finance company; thereupon title passes to purchaser even though actual delivery may be made at a later date.
The fifth numbered paragraph on the same side of the document is as follows:
Upon failure or the refusal of the purchaser to complete said purchase within 30 days of contract date, or an agreed extension thereof for any reason (other than cancellation on account of increase in price) the cash deposit may have such portion of it retained as will reimburse the dealer for expenses and other losses including attorney fees occasioned by purchaser's failure to complete said purchase. In the event a used car, trailer or mobilehome has been taken in trade, the purchaser hereby authorizes the dealer to sell said property, at public or private sale, and to deduct from the proceeds thereof a sum equal to the expenses and losses incurred, or suffered, by the dealer by reason of purchaser's failure to complete the transaction. Dealer shall have all the rights of a seller, upon breach of contract, under the Uniform Commercial Code 2-708, 2-710, 2-718, of the Uniform Sales Act (as applicable) provided the total amount of liquidated damages shall not exceed twenty (20%) percent of the cash sales price or $500 (whichever is lower) except in Wisconsin in which Sec. 218.01 with a penalty no greater than 5% of vehicle cash price shall prevail.
The stipulations of the parties indicate that the retail installment contract and security agreement of May 21, 1974, was never signed by plaintiffs, although it was "assigned" by defendant Rona to defendant Capital Savings & Loan Company. Defendant Rona insists that in the absence of some evidence of indebtedness, the April 24, 1974, transaction did not fall within the terms of the disclosure requirements of the Act.
§ 408 amended 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a), which governs civil liability under the Act, while §§ 406 and 407 added subsections (f) and (g) to 15 U.S.C. § 1640. The law which the Court must apply in this case is therefore the Truth in Lending Act as it existed upon enactment in 1968, except that the Court will apply 15 U.S.C. § 1640 §§ 406-408 of the Act of October 28, 1974.
The April 24, 1974, purchase agreement signed by the Copleys and by defendant Rona is by its terms a contract for the extension of credit. The face of the agreement reflects a trade-in allowance of $1,000.00, and a cash down payment of $4,000. It reflects an unpaid balance of $3700.00, a finance charge of $1225.89, a charge of $154.51 for credit life insurance, a total deferred payment price of $10,150.40, and an annual percentage rate of 11.27%. While Rona's "approval" of the agreement is expressly contingent upon acceptance of financing, the purchasers' responsibility under the agreement is unconditional. The first paragraph on the reverse side of the agreement provides that the purchaser "before, or at the time of delivery of the trailer, mobilehome or vehicle ordered, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of payment indicated on the face of this order, will either execute a retail installment contract, security agreement, or such other form of agreement as may be required by law." The fifth paragraph provides that the purchasers are liable in damages to the seller if they fail to "complete the purchase" within thirty days, or an agreed extension.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Postow v. Oba Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...is paid. See also Harvey v. Housing Devel. & Info. Cent., 451 F.Supp. 1198 (W.D.Mo.1978) (no commitment fee); Copley v. Rona Enterprises, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 979 (S.D.Ohio 1976) (same).9 Excerpts from FRB letter of March 6, 1970, by Kenneth A. Kenyon, Deputy Secretary (1969-1975 Transfer Bind......
-
United States v. Stitt
...a dwelling house." 460 A.2d at 69. Of these sixteen cases, eight of them do not involve burglary. See, e.g., Copley v. Rona Enterprises, Inc. , 423 F.Supp. 979 (S.D. Ohio 1976) (a federal court interpreting "dwelling" under the Truth in Lending Act). Three others considered burglary of mobi......
-
Skinner v. WT Grant Co.
...1064, 1069 (E.D.La.1977); Williams v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 345, 352-53 (E.D. La.1976); Copley v. Rona Enterprises, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 979, 984 n. 6 (S.D.Ohio 1976). Neither of the two cases which have construed the impact of section 115 on a credit transaction, Cenance v. Bohn......
-
Kanaras v. State
...under breaking and entering statute where owner had testified that he used it as a home while on the road); Copley v. Rona Enterprises, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 979 (S.D.Ohio 1976) (mobile home is a dwelling under Federal Truth in Lending Act); United States v. Grooms, 348 F.Supp. 1130 (D.C.M.D.Fl......