Gresham v. Termplan, Inc. West End, Civ. A. No. C78-2234A.

Decision Date08 November 1979
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. C78-2234A.
Citation480 F. Supp. 149
PartiesBeverly E. GRESHAM v. TERMPLAN, INC. WEST END
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

Ralph Goldberg, Bowen, Derrickson, Goldberg & West, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

Richard V. Karlberg, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

TIDWELL, District Judge.

The above-styled matter is before the Court on the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq., in connection with a consumer credit transaction between the parties.

Pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Magistrate found that Defendant had violated the Act and Regulation Z by including the state law terms ("LOAN FEE") among the terminology prescribed by 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(d)(2) for disclosure of prepaid finance charges ("PREPAID FINANCE CHARGE"). Finding that this single violation was sufficient to impose liability under the Act, the Magistrate recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

Defendant objected to the Report and Recommendation of the ground that the non-Federal language merely supplied "additional information" which does not obscure or detract from the required disclosure, as allowed by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(c).

Under Ga.Code Ann. § 25-319, a licensed lender is required to disclose the amount of interest and fees to the borrower. The lender is allowed to charge a "fee for making loan" under Ga.Code Ann. § 25-315(b) of 8% on the first $600 of the face amount, plus 4% of the excess. It thus appears that Defendant's use of the term "LOAN FEE" is an attempt to comply with disclosure provisions in Georgia law. State law is inconsistent with the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act to the extent that it requires the creditor to make disclosures different from the Federal requirements with respect to form or terminology. 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(b)(1)(i).

The language of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(c), makes it clear that if a creditor elects to make disclosures under state law which are inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, he may do so on the same statement if: (1) all Federal disclosures appear separately and above any other disclosures, (2) Federal disclosures are identified by a "clear and conspicuous" heading indicating that they are made in compliance with Federal law, and (3) all inconsistent disclosures appear separately and below a conspicuous demarcation line and are identified by a clear and conspicuous heading indicating that the statements made thereafter are inconsistent with the disclosure requirements of Federal Truth in Lending. 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(c)(2)(i), (ii), (iii).

Defendant here made use of the terms "LOAN FEE" in two separate portions of its contract form. In compliance with 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(c)(2)(iii), Defendant placed a conspicuous demarcation line on its form with the words, "STATE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL TRUTH IN LENDING ACT", immediately below it. The following boxed-in format can be found in that lower portion of the contract:

                      ------------------------------------
                       Loan Fee (4%)      $ NONE
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ector v. Southern Discount Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • January 17, 1981
    ...12 C.F.R. § 226.6(a) that disclosures be made "in the terminology prescribed in the applicable sections." In Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 480 F.Supp. 149 (N.D.Ga.1979) (Tidwell, J.) (motions for reconsideration denied January 18, 1980 and January 24, 1980), a different rationale was employed.......
  • Bloom v. Bradford
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 8, 1979
    ... ... for defendant Investors Diversified Services, Inc ...         Davis, Polk & Wardwell, ... ("Mutual"), an open-end investment company registered with the Securities ... ...
  • Briscoe v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Augusta, 66730
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 9, 1983
    ...until October 1, 1982, as revised). See also 12 CFR § 226.18. Compare Ector v. Southern Discount Co., 499 F.Supp. 284; Gresham v. Termplan, Inc. West End, 480 F.Supp. 149; Blalock v. Aetna Finance Co., 511 F.Supp. Judgment affirmed. SHULMAN, C.J., and BIRDSONG, J., concur. ...
  • Blalock v. Aetna Finance Co., Civ. A. No. C79-666A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 28, 1980
    ...(Freeman, J.); Flemings v. General Finance Corporation, C78-719A (N.D.Ga. December 11, 1979) (Edenfield, J.); Gresham v. Termplan, Inc., 480 F.Supp. 149 (N.D.Ga.1979) (Tidwell, J.); Ford v. General Finance Corporation, C78-328A (N.D.Ga. June 4, 1979) (Edenfield, J.). This Court, however, fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT