Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/503/246/1466804/
Timestamp: 2019-09-15 22:48:18
Document Index: 59953995

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1639', '§ 226', '§ 1639', '§ 226', '§ 9204', '§ 1640', '§ 1640']

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 503 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1980) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Pennsylvania › Eastern District of Pennsylvania › 1980 › Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 503 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1980)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania - 503 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1980)
A creditor in a TILA transaction must clearly describe or identify any security interest retained by the creditor. 15 U.S.C. at § 1639(a) (8); 12 C.F.R. at § 226.8(b) (5). Defendant disclosed the security interest at issue here by checking boxes next to the following items in Paragraph E of the printed Disclosure Statement:
The after-acquired property clause violates the TILA as to both real and personal property. First, the purported disclosure of a security interest in after-acquired real property is clearly inaccurate. Both defendant and plaintiffs agree that the mortgage defendants took in conjunction with this transaction applied only to the plaintiffs' residence at 2121 E. Orleans Street. Paragraph E.3. explicitly sets forth the legitimate security interest taken in real property. However, the after-acquired property clause contradicts Paragraph E.3. and incorrectly discloses a security interest in all real property acquired in the future by plaintiffs. An incorrect disclosure of a security interest violates the TILA and Regulation Z. 15 U.S.C. at § 1639(a) (8); 12 C.F.R. at § 226.8(b) (5).
The inaccuracy of the after-acquired property clause as to real property alone is enough to subject defendant to liability under the TILA. However, this inaccuracy is coupled with a confusing and misleading disclosure as to after-acquired personal property. Pennsylvania law limits the security interest a creditor can hold in after-acquired consumer goods. Under 13 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9204(d) (2) a creditor can acquire a security interest in such goods only where the debtor acquires rights in the goods within ten days after the creditor gives value. Paragraph E-2 is within the limits of Pennsylvania law. However, the bold print clause appears to grant a much broader security interest since it fails to confine the interest to property acquired within ten days.
The TILA also provides for a reasonable attorney fee for prevailing plaintiffs. 15 U.S.C. at § 1640(a) (3). Plaintiffs have requested an attorney's fee in this case. A petition for a fee under § 1640(a) (3) will be entertained.