Source: https://www.reallaw.us/2009/03/31/tila_class_action_defense_case_10/
Timestamp: 2020-08-10 19:30:51
Document Index: 635860944

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1601', '§ 226', '§ 226', '§ 226', '§ 226', '§ 226', '§ 226', '§ 226']

Mar 31, 2009 | By: Michael J. Hassen
The Ninth Circuit began its discussion by noting that “Congress enacted TILA to ‘assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices.’” McCoy, at 3329 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a)). Toward that end, the Federal Reserve Board adopted Regulation Z, which addresses when and how notice of changes in terms must be given and which provides, in part, that written notice is required “[w]henever any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6 is changed or the required minimum periodic payment is increased,” 12 C.F.R. § 226.9©(1). Section 226.6, in turn, requires that creditors to disclose “each periodic rate that may be used to compute the finance charge.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.9(a)(2). The Circuit Court explained that the parties “dispute the meaning of the phrase ‘any term required to be disclosed under § 226.6’”; defense attorneys argued that “the phrase applies only to the contractual terms of Chase’s Cardmember Agreement,” while plaintiff argued that “the phrase also applies to the list of specific ‘items’ § 226.6(a)(2) requires be disclosed, which includes the interest rate that may be used.” McCoy, at 3329. The Ninth Circuit found the language of Regulation Z to be “ambiguous,” and noted that it would defer to the Federal Reserve’s “interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation” so long as that interpretation is not “‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” Id., at 3330 (citation omitted).
Defense attorneys argued that Comment 1 of the Federal Reserve’s Official Staff Commentary controls, and that it specifically states that notice is not required of changes “initially disclosed,” such as “Rate increases under a properly disclosed variable-rate plan, a rate increase that occurs when an employee has been under a preferential rate agreement and terminates employment, or an increase that occurs when the consumer has been under an agreement to maintain a certain balance in a savings account in order to keep a particular rate and the account balance falls below the specified minimum.” McCoy, at 3330 (quoting 12 C.F.R. § 226.9©, cmt. 1). The Circuit Court held, however, that Comment 3 governs: Comment 3 provides that “‘a notice of change in terms is required, but may be mailed or delivered as late as the effective date of the change … [i]f there is an increased periodic rate or any other finance charge attributable to the consumer’s delinquency or default.’” Id. (quoting § 226.9©(1), cmt. 3). Under the Court’s analysis, “The plain-meaning of Comment 3 is to require notice when a cardholder’s interest rates increase because of a default, but to specify that the notice may be contemporaneous, rather than fifteen days in advance of the change.” Id. Accordingly, the Circuit Court held that plaintiff’s class action complaint had stated a TILA claim under Comment 3. Id.