Palmucci v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., Civ. No. N-83-280 (PCD).
Decision Date | 04 October 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. N-83-280 (PCD). |
Citation | 618 F. Supp. 460 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | Albert PALMUCCI and Elizabeth Palmucci v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. |
William H. Clendenen, Jr., Clendenen & Lesser, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiffs.
Cheever Tyler, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for defendant.
RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Cross-motions for summary judgment on the sole remaining count in this consumer action require analysis of the tangled web of the truth-in-lending laws, i.e., the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968, as amended, particularly by the Truth-in-Lending Simplification Reform Act of 1980, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq.; Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226 Supp. 1 (Reg. Z); and the Federal Reserve Board Staff Interpretations, 12 C.F.R. § 226(a) (Commentary), revised in 1981. Plaintiffs assert that parts of the standard retail installment contract (contract) used by General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) violate various format requirements imposed by truth-in-lending regulations. For the reasons below, and cognizant that so holding creates a split of authority within this district, summary judgment shall enter for defendant.
On December 3, 1982, plaintiffs executed a retail installment contract to finance the purchase of a 1983 Chevrolet. The contract, attached as Exhibit A, was assigned to defendant, GMAC. GMAC's lien on the automobile was recorded on the vehicle's certificate of title for which plaintiffs were charged $1.00. That charge was specified on Line 4D of the "Itemization of Amount Financed" in the contract. Mr. Palmucci also agreed to purchase optional credit life and credit disability insurance offered by GMAC and he so indicated by signing his name in a separate box in the contract labeled "Optional Credit Insurance." The premium for the insurance was specifically disclosed on Line 4C of the "Itemization of Amount Financed," and was referred to in the "Optional Credit Insurance" box in which those who purchase the insurance are informed that its cost is shown on Line 4C. Neither the lien fee nor the optional insurance premium was included in the "Finance Charge." They were included in the "Amount Financed."
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the implementation of truth-in-lending legislation. The Board's regulations and staff interpretations translate the general goals and provisions of truth-in-lending laws into the detailed rules which govern credit transactions. Regulation Z, for example, promotes "the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and costs." 12 C.F.R. § 226.1(b). It contains numerous technical specifications for the form and content of disclosures required of creditors. Failure to comply with either the substantive or format requirements of Reg. Z subjects the creditor to various civil liabilities. 15 U.S.C. § 1640.
Subpart C of Reg. Z contains the disclosure requirements for "closed-end" credit transactions, such as the simple, fixed-term installment loan in the instant case. Extensive excerpting of ¶¶ 17 and 18, the Commentary thereto, and the references therein, will aid in the resolution of the issues raised by the pending motions.
37 The disclosures may include an acknowledgment of receipt, the date of the transaction, and the consumer's name, address, and account number.
38 The following disclosures may be made together or separately from other required disclosures: the creditor's identity under § 226.18(a), the variable rate example under § 226.18(f)(4), insurance under § 226.18(n), and certain security interest charges under § 226.18(o).
Regulation 226.18 Content of disclosures.
COMMENTARY:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffin v. American Motors Sales Corp., Civ. 4-85-450.
... ... a money obligation is payable in installments, the general rule is that a separate cause of action arises on each ... ...
-
Vickers v. Interstate Dodge, Inc.
...is that they must be grouped together and separated from other disclosures which may be required by state law. Id.; Palmucci v. GMAC, 618 F.Supp. 460 (D.C.Conn.1985). There are four exceptions to this rule. 12 C.F.R. § 226.17(a)(1). One is Section 226.18(n), which provides that "the credito......
-
In re Oliver
...create a conflict with the federal TILA, which permits said disclosures to appear on a separate document. Palmucci v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 618 F.Supp. 460 (D.Conn.1985) (citing the Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226 Supp. 1 (Reg. z) ("The disclosures may appear ......