Murphy v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:05CV1545RWS.,4:05CV1545RWS. |
| Citation | 456 F.Supp.2d 1082 |
| Parties | Eunice MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Blair K. Drazic, Blair K. Drazic, P.C., Creve Coeur, MO, for Plaintiff.
Adam W. Wiers, Jones and Day, Chicago, IL, John J. Friedline, Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA, Christopher T. Lane, Mickey J. Lee, Schuckit and Associates, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Steven H. Schwartz, Brown and James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Eunice Murphy ("Murphy") claims that Defendants Trans Union, LLC. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. violated her rights by willfully or negligently failing to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and as a result she has been denied credit and incurred emotional distress, inconvenience and expense. Defendants Trans Union, LLC. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendants")1 are credit reporting agencies that report consumer credit based on information provided by creditors. Defendants, based on information provided by creditors Providian Financial Corporation ("Providian") and Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Midland"), reported to one or more creditors that Murphy had a delinquent account with Providian and Midland.
Trans Union and Experian have moved for summary judgment on the following grounds:
• they reported accurate information regarding the delinquent account;
• they cannot be liable for any alleged damages prior to Plaintiff advising them that she disputed the accuracy of her credit report;
• they cannot be liable for any alleged damages after Plaintiff advised them of her dispute because their reinvestigations of the account and reliance on the furnishers' verifications were proper and reasonable as a matter of law;
• statutory law provides that the furnisher's duty to accurately report information preclude their liability;
• Murphy cannot meet her burden of proof that her single alleged credit denial was caused by Defendants' reporting the subject information or that she suffered emotional distress; and
• Murphy can produce no evidence that Defendants "willfully" failed to comply with their duties.
The motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part. I will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Murphy's 15 U.S.C. § 1681 e(b) claims because Defendants' reporting procedures, prior to Murphy's initial disputes, were reasonable. I will also grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Murphy's 15 U.S.C. § 1681 i(a) claims as to the issue of causing her Community Bank credit denial because Murphy cannot prove causation. I will also grant summary judgment in favor of Trans Union on Murphy's 15 U.S.C. § 1681n claim because Murphy has admitted Trans Union did not fact which preclude a judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff Eunice Murphy married Dale Murphy in 1996. In May 1998, Providian Financial Corporation acquired from First Union National Bank a credit card account that Defendants Experian and Trans Union allege was jointly owned by both Eunice and Dale Murphy. Joint accounts are accounts that have two individuals that are both contractually liable for the balance owed. Eunice Murphy denies having ever applied for, agreed to use, or signed for the Providian account. Eunice Murphy's name appeared on billing statements for the Providian account since at least June 15, 1998.
In June 2000, Dale Murphy passed away. After his death, Providian removed his name from the account. Providian continued to report Eunice Murphy's individual liability on the Providian account. In July 2001, Providian sold the account to Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Midland") and Midland began reporting Eunice Murphy's alleged personal individual liability on the account in the delinquent amount of $926. Midland reported the account as a Midland account using a different account number than Providian had previously reported.
On March 29, 2004, Eunice Murphy applied to Community Bank of Pettis County for a loan of $3,200. The bank denied the loan. In January 2005, Plaintiff again applied for a loan of $3,200 from Community Bank. On January 28, 2005, Community Bank sent Murphy a letter again denying the loan. The letter stated that the denial was based on a Trans Union credit report. The letter further stated that the bank had denied the loan for multiple reasons, including "excessive obligations in relation to income," "delinquent past or present credit obligations with others," and "garnishment, attachment, foreclosure, repossession, collection action or judgment." Since January 2001, Eunice Murphy's sole basis of income has been her Social Security Disability benefits of $1,065 per month.
On August 28, 2003, Eunice Murphy contacted Experian by telephone and requested a copy of her consumer credit disclosure from Experian. Experian sent her a copy of her consumer credit disclosure as required by the FCRA. On the August 28, 2003 disclosure, Experian reported both a Providian and a Midland account for Eunice Murphy and identified both as delinquent accounts. On September 2, 2003, Murphy contacted Experian by telephone to request a reinvestigation of the Providian and Midland accounts, informing Experian that she did not believe that either the Providian or the Midland accounts belonged to her and asserting that she was not responsible for the accounts.
In response to Eunice Murphy's request, Experian initiated investigations into both the Providian and Midland accounts. Experian sent a Consumer Dispute Verification ("CDV") to both Providian and Midland on September 2, 2003. The CDV described Eunice Murphy's dispute and requested that Providian and Midland verify the accuracy of the information that Experian was reporting with respect to each account. Providian responded to Experian's inquiry by deleting the account. Midland responded to Experian's inquiry by verifying that the account was being reported accurately. Based on these responses from Providian and Midland, Experian deleted the Providian account from Eunice Murphy's credit report. Experian sent Murphy confirmation of the results of the two investigations, including notice that the Providian account had been deleted. Murphy telephoned Experian on September 29, 2003, asking that it again reinvestigate the Midland account. In response, Experian reinvestigated the Midland account by merely sending Midland another CDV. In response to the second CDV, Midland again verified the accuracy of the delinquent account.
On January 31, 2005, Eunice Murphy called Experian to request another reinvestigation into the Midland account. Eunice Murphy continued to maintain that the account was not hers. In response, Experian sent a third CDV to Midland. Midland did not reply to this CDV within thirty days. In keeping with its policy to delete the account related to a CDV that is not responded to within thirty days, Experian deleted the Midland account from Eunice Murphy's report in February 2005. On March 2, 2005, Experian sent Eunice Murphy a revised credit disclosure reflecting the removal of the Midland account.
As a result of the allegedly inaccurate negative credit information reported by Experian, Eunice Murphy alleges that her credit standing was and will in the future be damaged, causing her to sustain denials of credit, emotional distress, inconvenience and expense caused by the denials of credit.
On or about August 29, 2003, Eunice Murphy disputed the ownership of the Providian account with Trans Union. Thereafter, on or about September 18, 2003, Trans Union removed the Providian account from Eunice Murphy's credit file. On or about that same date, Murphy disputed her liability on the Midland account. Trans Union initiated an investigation of the Midland account via an automated CDV ("ACDV"), informing Midland that Eunice Murphy disputed the Midland account as "not hers and requesting that Midland. `provide complete identification" Including social security number. On or about October 15, 2003, Midland advised Trans Union that Eunice Murphy was liable on the Midland account and provided Murphy's complete identification, including social security number. Trans Union thereafter sent Murphy the results of its investigation and included a current copy of her Trans Union credit file, stating that Midland had confirmed the delinquent account's accuracy.
On January 28, 2005, Eunice Murphy again disputed her liability for the Midland account with Trans Union. Trans Union initiated another investigation and contacted Midland with another ACDV that Eunice Murphy contended that she was not liable for the account. Trans Union directed Midland to provide complete identification, including social security number and type of liability, if Midland determined Eunice Murphy was liable. Midland responded by verifying that Eunice Murphy was liable for the delinquent Midland account. Midland also provided Eunice Murphy's complete identification, including social security number, and identified the type of liability as "individual." On February 2, 2005, Trans Union sent Murphy the results of its second investigation, including a copy of her Trans Union credit file, stating that Midland had confirmed that the delinquent Midland account was accurately reported.
As a result of this negative credit information reported by Trans Union, Murphy alleges that her credit standing was and will in the future be damaged, causing her to sustain denials of credit, emotional distress inconvenience and expense caused by the denials of credit.
In considering whether to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ketsenburg v. ChexSystems, Inc.
...Court dismisses Ketsenburg's Section 1681i(a) claim because he has not demonstrated that the information reported was inaccurate. Murphy, 456 F.Supp.2d at 1089; Edeh v. Info. Servs., LLC, 919 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1012 (D. Minn. 2013) (“a claim under § 1681i requires a showing that the informatio......
-
Ricketson v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.
...or emotional injury, or other witness corroboration of any outward manifestation of emotional distress." Murphy v. Midland Credit Mgmt. , 456 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1093 (E.D. Mo. 2006) (citing Forshee v. Waterloo Indus. , 178 F.3d 527, 531 (8th Cir. 1999) ).Currently, a circuit split exists as to......
-
Juarez v. Experian Info. Sols.
...Campbell v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 08-4217-CV-C-NKL, 2009 WL 3834125 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2009); Murphy v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 2006)). The defendants in Campbell and Murphy did not argue that the debtor's misidentification was a legal inaccuracy......
-
Howell v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
...on summary judgment unless the reasonable or unreasonableness of the procedures is beyond question." Murphy v. Midland CreditManagement, Inc., 456 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1090 (E.D. Mo. 2006) (citing Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 259 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2001)). When the facts are disputed, re......
-
Banks Can't Decide What Triggers FCRA Investigation
...the accuracy of the source versus the "'possible harm of reporting inaccurate information.'" Murphy v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1090 (E.D. Mo. However, it is unlikely that such cost-benefit analysis will ever obviate the need for a true factual determination. When co......