In SimmsParris v. Countrywide Financial Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3196079 (3d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed FCRA’s statutory framework that a consumer must first dispute a report with the CRA in order to maintain a cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b). In the present case, SimmsParris did not comply… Read More
In Wells v. Craig & Landreth Cars, Inc., 2011 WL 1542121 (W.D.Ky. 2011), Judge Simpson held that an auto finance company accessing a consumer’s credit for the potential extension of credit did not violate the “permissible purpose” requirement of FCRA when the buyer’s purchase transaction turned out to be a cash-sale and the buyer claimed that he did not authorize… Read More
In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., here, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a short opinion affirming the district court's summary judgement motion, holding that a furnisher of information need investigate only what is contained in the CRA’s dispute notice as to the nature of the dispute. We previously had reported on the district Court's opinion in October… Read More
In Anderson v. EMC Mortg. Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 409095 (8th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a furnisher did not violate FCRA by failing to re-investigate a purported inaccuracy as to which month an account was past due on. The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to notify… Read More
In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More
In Chaing v. Verizon New England, Inc. – F.3d --, 2010 WL 431873 (1st Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Verizon based on its reinvestigation under FCRA, explaining: This leaves the question of the extent of a furnisher's investigation obligation under § 1681s-2(b). The statute does not define… Read More
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re-issued its Gorman decision, following re-hearing petitions filed by industry, with mere commentary in footnotes. With these amendments, the panel unanimously has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc and Appellee’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petitions… Read More
On July 1, and effective July 1, 2010, July 1, 2009 Inter-agency FACTA Rule 974 Fed. Reg. 31484 (2009) was issued defining the obligations imposed on furnishers of credit reporting information. The history behind the July 1, 2009 Inter-Agency Rule is as follows. FACTA and Implementing Regulations On December 4, 2003, Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act, which amended the… Read More
In Pintos v. Pacific Creditor’s Association, Inc. --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 1151800 (9th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a creditor of towing debt had a permissible purpose under FCRA to pull a credit report on the debtor. The Court of Appeals held that the creditor did not, explaining: To qualify under §… Read More
In Pulliam v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1586012 (N.D.Ill. 2009), Judge Kennelly addressed whether a pro per Plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under FCRA arising from the defendant’s purported access of Plaintiff’s credit report without a permissible purpose. The issue before the District Court was whether FCRA permits a creditor… Read More
In Drew v. Equifax, 2009 WL 595459 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Illston held that a furnisher was on notice of a consumer dispute when the CRA merely sent a letter to the furnisher notifying the furnisher that it had deleted the customer’s trade-line because the account was fraudulent. Judge Illston explained: Chase contends that it is entitled to summary judgment… Read More
See my March 4, 2009 article in the Consumer Financial Services Law Report here. Source: Consumer Financial Services Law Report. Copyright 2009 by LRP Publications, P.O. Box 24668, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4668. All rights reserved. For more information on this or other products published by LRP Publications, please call 1-800-341-7874 or visit their website at: www.shoplrp.com Read More
In Zimmerman v. Bank of America, , 2009 WL 418606 (N.D.Miss 2009), Judge Mills ruled on what constitutes a “reasonable investigation” by a furnisher after it receives a consumer dispute verification from a credit reporting agency which gives notification of such dispute by the consumer. Judge Mills found the question of “reasonableness” best left to Mississippi juries. The Fifth… Read More
In Sanai v. Saltz --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 162059 (2009), the Second District Court of Appeal declined to follow the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Liceaga on December 30, 2008, finding a private right of action under the CCRAA (Civil Code § 1785.25(a)) pre-empted by FCRA. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal followed the Court of… Read More
In Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, __ F.3d __ 2009 WL 57091 (9th Cir. 2009) the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, among other things, that FCRA does not pre-empt Civil Code 1785.25 of the CCRAA. This holding overrules multiple district court opinions to the contrary, and is opposite to the California Court of Appeal's decision on December… Read More
In Liceaga v. Debt Recovery Solutions, L.L.C. __ Cal.App.4th __ 2008 WL 5392184 (2008), the First District Court of Appeal found no private right of action under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act because FCRA pre-empts it. The Court explained We are not alone in our determination that the California exception is limited and does not allow a private right… Read More
In Roybal v. Equifax, Judge England issued three separate opinions addressing liability of furnishers and credit reporting agencies. In Roybal v. Equifax, 2008 WL 453447 (E.D.Cal. 2008), Judge England addressed the CRAs for publishing allegedly inaccurate credit information about the plaintiff. First, Judge England allowed a wife to pursue a claim for inaccuracies in the husband's credit report: The… Read More
In Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust of Virginia, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a punitive damage award against an automobile lender that had failed to report to the Credit Reporting Agencies in response to a Consumer Dispute Verification that the consumer disputed the account. The Court of Appeals found that a furnisher's failure to report… Read More
