Brief Fact Summary. Peter Belmont, (Plaintiff), filed this complaint against Associates National Bank, (Defendant), seeking relief under 15 U.S.C. Section:Section:1640(a)(2)(A), 1640 (a)(3) and 1666(e).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Those whom the creditor claims are obligors as well as individuals who are in fact obligors are eligible for the protections under 15 U.S.C. Section:1666-1666(a).
A pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney's fees.View Full Point of Law
Whether the “Wrong-Person Error” alleged by Plaintiff constitutes a billing error under TILA.
Whether Plaintiff’s Notice of Billing Error conformed to the requirements of Section:1666(a)
Whether Defendant is in violation of Section:1666(a)(3).
Yes. The “Wrong-Person Error” alleged by Plaintiff constitutes a billing error under both paragraph s (1) and (2) of Section:1666(b).
Yes. It is doubtful whether Defendant has ever received a notice of billing error that adheres more closely to the requirements of Section:1666(a).
Yes. Defendant is in violation of Section:1666(a)(3)
The TILA is to be liberally construed in favor of consumers. Paragraph (1) states that a billing error includes a statement of credit that was not made to the obligor. Nothing in paragraph (1) indicates that its scope is limited to particular charges to the account as opposed to the entire account itself. Plaintiff’s assertion that he is not an obligor on the account implies that Defendant ever extended credit to him in the amount state on the billing statement viz. the entire amount of the statement. Therefore the “Wrong-Person Error constitutes a billing error under paragraph (1). It qualifies under paragraph (2) as well because Plaintiff clearly requested clarification including documentary evidence regarding whether Defendant had in fact extended him the credit reflected in the statements.
Plaintiff’s notice of billing error was timely sent because it was sent within 60 days of Defendant’s statement. It repeatedly state his name and account number. It indicated the reason he believed a billing error occurred as well as the amount of such error. It was clearly recognizable as a valid notice because of its all-capitals heading indicating so. Further there is nothing in the parties’ correspondence that indicates that Defendants failed to recognize it as a Notice of Billing Error.
Defendant’s response is in violation of Section:1666(a)(3)(A) on its face. Defendant failed to acknowledge the receipt of Plaintiff’s first notice of billing error within 30 days. Defendant did not correct the error nor did it send a written explanation or clarification including copies of the documentary evidence requested. Further, Defendant did not establish a good faith defense under Section:1640(f) because Defendant did not assert that it mistakenly relied on any rule in fashioning its response to Plaintiff’s notice.
Not only did Defendant’s letters constitute implicit threats to Plaintiff’s credit rating, but it actually did make an adverse credit report after receipt of a valid notice of billing error but before complying with its obligation under Section:1666(a)(3).
Obligors must necessarily be construed to include those whom the creditor claims are obligors as well as individuals who are in fact obligors in the contract law sense. If they were not, then a consumer, who believes that he is not obligated under a credit account and promptly notifies the creditor of the mistake through a proper notice of billing error, would not be protected under the statute. The TILA was intended to protect consumers and the courts mandate the TILA be liberally construed to do so.
The remedies available under this statute apply to Plaintiff even if Defendant has “forgiven” the debt. Defendant shall be enjoined from collecting the first $50 on the account from Plaintiff. Defendant shall be required to pay a penalty of twice the finance charge in the transaction. Plaintiff representing himself pro se shall be awarded costs.