Wachtel v. West, Civ. A. No. 1115.

Decision Date15 June 1972
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1115.
PartiesSiegfried WACHTEL et ux., Plaintiffs, v. Bryce WEST et ux., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

Thomas E. Watts, Jr., Butler, McHugh, Butler, Tune & Watts, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

J. Stanley Rogers, Garrett, Shields, Rogers & Parsons, Manchester, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

This is an action of first impression, by which the plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Wachtel seek money damages from the defendants Mr. and Mrs. West under the Truth-in-Lending Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. The defendants have moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).

The facts, as they appear from the pleadings, are that Mr. and Mrs. Wachtel borrowed money on consumer credit from Mr. and Mrs. West on October 28, 1970; and that such creditors failed to make the disclosures required by 15 U. S.C. § 1631(a) at the time of the loan transaction and had not done so when this action was commenced. It is patent that 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) limits actions for the damages provided for under 15 U.S.C. § 1640, which may be brought in a United States district court or other court of competent jurisdiction, to "* * * one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation." Mr. and Mrs. Wachtel claim that the defendants' failure to disclose under the Truth-in-Lending Act is a continuing violation thereof, and that the aforementioned one-year period did not begin to run until the borrowers notified the creditors of their (the borrowers') intention to rescind the loan agreement.

There is nothing in the Truth-in-Lending Act or its legislative history, U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, 90th Congress, 2d Session, (1968) p. 1962, et seq., which specifically defines the point at which such "violation" thereunder occurs. However, the Act itself appears to contemplate that "a violation" occurs at the moment a loan transaction is consummated; accordingly, that the limitation of 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) commences to run at that moment. As has been observed:

* * * The Act requires that `each creditor shall disclose clearly and conspicuously, in accordance with the regulations of the Board, to each person to whom consumer credit is extended and upon whom a finance charge is or may be imposed, the information required under this part.' 15 U.S.C. § 1631(a). For failure in connection with any consumer credit transaction to disclose to any person information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a), the Truth-In-Lending Act
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Postow v. Oriental Building Association
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 14, 1975
    ...Inc., 59 F.R.D. 491 (C.D.Cal.1973) (claims arising out of execution of contracts for membership in health spa). In Wachtel v. West, 344 F.Supp. 680, 681 (E.D.Tenn.1972), aff'd 476 F.2d 1062 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied. 414 U.S. 874, 94 S.Ct. 161, 38 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973), a case involving th......
  • Munn v. American General Investment Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • May 17, 1973
    ...in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). See Stavrides v. Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., 353 F.Supp. 1072 (W.D.Pa.1973); Wachtel v. West, 344 F.Supp. 680 (E.D. Tenn.1972). In reference to the antitrust claims the plaintiffs have made barebone allegations of impropriety on the part of the var......
  • Timm v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 28, 2016
    ...date the transaction was consummated." Chevalier v. Baird Sav. Ass'n, 371 F. Supp. 1282, 1284 (E.D. Pa. 1974) (citing Wachtel v. West, 344 F. Supp. 680(E.D. Tenn. 1972)). Thus, the one-year statute of limitations begins running upon consummation of the transaction. See id. Regardless of the......
  • Goldman v. First National Bank of Chicago
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 5, 1975
    ...on April 25, 1972, more than a year after the loan was made. On these facts the lower court dismissed the action on the merits (344 F.Supp. 680 (E.D.Tenn.1972)). The court of appeals affirmed the lower court A credit transaction which requires disclosures under the Act is completed when the......
  • 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