Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): new affirmative defense remedy under the ECOA that a debtor may use to invalidate the entire underlying debt when no language providing for such a defense is expressly or implicitly contained within the ECOA. See Ami L. Dilorenzo, Regulation B: How Lenders Can Fight Back Against the Affirmative Use of Regula .P., 51 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir.1995) (reasoning, at least in part, that a plaintiff could proceed with a defensive ECOA claim after the statutory period had run, by way of the right of recoupment); Integra Bank/Pittsburgh v. Freeman, 839 F.Supp. 326, 330 n. 6 (E.D.Pa.1993) (recognizing an action by way of recoupment, which essentially functions as a defense, will lie where a party possesses an otherwise time-barred ECOA claim); In re Remington, 19 B.R. 718, 721 (Bankr.D.Colo.1982) (<HOLDING>); PNC Bank, Del. v. Turner, 659 A.2d 222, 225 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the recoupment doctrine could allow a spouse to assert an ecoa affirmative defense against a creditor even after the statute of limitations had run (B) holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense (C) holding that ecoa violation cannot be asserted as affirmative defense (D) holding defendant was entitled to assert an ecoa violation as an affirmative defense to avoid only her liability because to do otherwise would be to enforce conduct that is forbidden by the ecoa (E) holding even though an affirmative action for damages is barred the debtor may assert an ecoa violation defensively in the nature of recoupment
Output (English): holding defendant was entitled to assert an ecoa violation as an affirmative defense to avoid only her liability because to do otherwise would be to enforce conduct that is forbidden by the ecoa