District Court (Tenn.) Says Car Dealer’s Failure to Identify Date for Final Payment under RISC Violated TILA

The next issue the Court must address is whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the required TILA disclosures. It is undisputed that the “final payment” appearing in the payment schedule of the disclosure lacked a due date. (Doc. 25-1.) It is Congress’s intent for TILA disclosures to be “clear and conspicuously in writing….” 12 C.F.R. § 226.17. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the consumers from having to guess or assume a disclosure’s particular meaning. See Wright v. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc., 679 F.2d 436, 445 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Pennino v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 526 F.2d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 1976). Whether a creditor’s disclosure is clear is a question of law, determined on an “ordinary consumer” standard. In other words, what a given consumer knows or does not know is immaterial when evaluating a creditor’s TILA disclosures. See Purtle, 91 F.3d at 800. Since the “final payment” is an irregular payment—that is, a one-time payment not covered by the FRB’s period of payments disclosure rule—that payment must have a disclosed due date to be compliant with the TILA. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.18(g). The court finds it persuasive that the FRB’s two published model forms instructing creditors on how to disclose a series of regular payments and a single irregular payment both include a due date for the single irregular payment. See 12 C.F.R. pt. 226 app. H, at H-11 and H-12. Disclosing the due date for the single irregular payment prevents the consumer from having to guess or assume when the payment is due.