District Court (Pa.) Finds TILA Disclosures Delivered to Vehicle Purchaser

In Kuenzi v. EuroSport Cycles, Inc., 2011 WL 1883052 (E.D.Pa. 2011), Judge O’Neill held that an affidavit setting forth policies to deliver TILA statements to consumers constituted adequate proof that TILA disclosures were given. In Kuenzi, the plaintiff obtained a loan from defendant Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. to purchase a motorcycle from EuroSport Cycles, Inc. and Don Murray d/b/a EuroSport Cycles, Inc. The loan check was cashed but the dealer never delivered the motorcycle to Kuenzi and this action ensued. Plaintiff alleged TILA violations against the Capital One, which Judge O’Neill rejected.

The TILA creates a rebuttable presumption that required disclosures occurred where there is a “written acknowledgement of receipt of any disclosures required … by a person to whom such information, forms, and a statement is required to be given.” 15 U .S.C. § 1635(c). The check executed by Kuenzi included a disclosure acknowledgement and creates a presumption that he did, in fact, receive the required TILA disclosures. See Oscar v. Bank One, N.A., No. 05–5928, 2006 WL 401853, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb.17, 2006), appeal dismissed, 223 F. App’x 164 (3d Cir.2007); Strang v. Wells Fargo, No. 04–2865, 2005 WL 1655886, at *3 (E.D.Pa. July 13, 2005). Kuenzi contends that his testimony that he did not receive a TILA disclosure with his Blank Check is sufficient to rebut the presumption that he did not receive the required TILA disclosures prior to his execution of the Blank Check. I disagree. Where a borrower has signed a written acknowledgment of receipt of TILA disclosures, the borrower’s testimony that he or she did not receive TILA disclosures is not sufficient on its own to rebut the presumption that the disclosures were received. See Strang, 2005 WL 1655886, at *3; see also Siffel v. NFM, Inc., No. 07–05152, 2009 WL 3049716, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Sept.23, 2009) (holding that plaintiffs could not rebut the presumption of delivery under TILA where there was no record evidence to “allow a finding that they received fewer than the necessary TILA notices”).