Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., No. 78-2025
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before PELL and TONE, Circuit Judges, and KIRKLAND; KIRKLAND |
| Citation | 599 F.2d 829 |
| Parties | Mary Ann WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDITHRIFT OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2025 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1979 |
Page 829
v.
CREDITHRIFT OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Seventh Circuit.
Decided June 14, 1979.
Page 830
Donald L. Robinson, Peoria, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harry C. Bulkeley, Galesburg, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before PELL and TONE, Circuit Judges, and KIRKLAND, Senior District Judge. *
KIRKLAND, Senior District Judge:
The issues before us are: (1) whether a creditor's failure to disclose on the loan statement the amount of credit the debtor will have for actual use violates the Truth in Lending Act ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 Et seq., of the Federal Reserve Board and (2) whether the disclosures required on the loan statement by the Act and Regulation Z are made by this creditor in meaningful sequence. We hold that no liability may be imposed on a creditor who complies in good faith with the requirements of Regulation Z notwithstanding that creditor's failure to comply with a disclosure of loan proceeds required by the Act. We also hold that the disclosures made by this creditor are made in meaningful sequence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court of June 21, 1978.
I. Facts
The facts of this case are uncontested. The essential facts are that on February 16, 1977, defendant-appellee extended consumer credit to plaintiff-appellant in the form of a loan for her personal use. In connection with the extension of said credit, defendants prepared a "Loan Statement" which purported to make all the disclosures required by the Act and Regulation Z. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated Section 1639(a) of the Act and Regulation Z by failing to disclose the actual amount of credit to be extended to plaintiff and failing to make other required disclosures in meaningful sequence.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the amount financed figure does not reveal the amount actually to be paid to her because the amount financed figure includes insurance charges which are to be deducted from the amount of money actually paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff also asserts that the individual insurance charges are not in reasonable proximity to the amount financed, thus obscuring the fact that they are component parts of the latter figure. Plaintiff claims that these are logically related terms which should be grouped together in order to satisfy the "meaningful sequence" requirement.
The District Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The Court held that defendant's failure to disclose and to itemize individually the amount of credit plaintiff would have for actual use did not constitute a violation of the Act and Regulation Z. The District Court also concluded that defendant made all the disclosures mandated by the Act and Regulation Z in a meaningful sequence.
Page 831
II.
In Basham v. Finance America Corporation, 583 F.2d 918 (7th Cir. 1978), this Court considered an issue identical to one presented by this case; i. e., whether a creditor's failure to disclose the actual proceeds of a loan on the loan statement constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a). 1 This Court's opinion in that case held that good faith compliance with the provisions of Regulation Z is sufficient to preclude liability on the part of lenders for noncompliance with Section 1639(a)(1) of the Act.
Section 226.8(d)(1) of Regulation Z requires disclosure of:
The amount of credit, . . . which will be paid to the customer or for his account or to another person on his behalf, including all charges, individually itemized, which are included in the amount of credit extended but which are not part of the finance charge, using the term "amount financed."
This Court recognized in Basham that this provision of Regulation Z...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. No. 2 Galesburg Crown Finance Corp., Nos. 78-2145
...in Pollock, at least in the absence of an affirmative showing of good faith. Our recent opinion in Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1979), sheds some additional light on this question. In that case we reaffirmed our holding in Basham, and again applied the good......
-
Wollman v. Gross, No. 80-1204
...claims. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the history of the plaintiff's claim is that he did not use this time diligently. 599 F.2d at 829. Wollman, to the contrary, was exceedingly 7 United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. at 118, 100 S.Ct. at 357. As the Court cautioned: "In this case......
-
Nesbitt v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., No. 79 C 134
...in a reasonably if not optimally comprehensible fashion, and that is all that is required. Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829, 832 (7th B. Plaintiffs' Second Claim Plaintiffs' second claim concerns the acceleration, delinquency and prepayment provisions of the notes and di......
-
Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., No. 93-2555
...any rule, regulation, or interpretation by the Federal Reserve Board. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1640(f); see Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829, 831-32 (7th Cir. 1979). Pursuant to its authority under section 1604, the Federal Reserve Board has adopted Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. pt. 226......
-
Smith v. No. 2 Galesburg Crown Finance Corp., Nos. 78-2145
...in Pollock, at least in the absence of an affirmative showing of good faith. Our recent opinion in Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1979), sheds some additional light on this question. In that case we reaffirmed our holding in Basham, and again applied the good......
-
Wollman v. Gross, No. 80-1204
...claims. The reasonable inference to be drawn from the history of the plaintiff's claim is that he did not use this time diligently. 599 F.2d at 829. Wollman, to the contrary, was exceedingly 7 United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. at 118, 100 S.Ct. at 357. As the Court cautioned: "In this case......
-
Nesbitt v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., No. 79 C 134
...in a reasonably if not optimally comprehensible fashion, and that is all that is required. Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829, 832 (7th B. Plaintiffs' Second Claim Plaintiffs' second claim concerns the acceleration, delinquency and prepayment provisions of the notes and di......
-
Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., No. 93-2555
...any rule, regulation, or interpretation by the Federal Reserve Board. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1640(f); see Warren v. Credithrift of America, Inc., 599 F.2d 829, 831-32 (7th Cir. 1979). Pursuant to its authority under section 1604, the Federal Reserve Board has adopted Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. pt. 226......