Opinion ID: 374734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper marking of security interest boxes

Text: 42 The form used in this case is designed to disclose the various security interests taken by having either a YES or NO typed in each of the three boxes indicating the security interests which may be taken. The first box contains a YES. The second box also contains a YES. The third YES, however, appears partially within the second and partially within the third box. This gives rise to the debtor's argument that the taking of a mortgage as a security interest (indicated by the third box) has not properly been disclosed. 43 If the third box had been left entirely blank, we would have no hesitancy in holding that this results in a violation of the disclosure requirements. Clausen v. Beneficial Finance Co., 423 F.Supp. 985 (N.D.Cal.1976). However, in this case the third yes does appear partially within the appropriate box, and it is, as noted by the district court, obvious that the third yes applies to the third box. Also, there is no problem of legibility involved here. None of the purposes served by TILA would be advanced by finding a violation under the circumstances presented, and we refuse to do so. 44 By way of summary, we find violations of TILA in both cases of use of improper terminology. We also find a violation in the illegible disclosure of the finance charge. We find no violation resulting from the relationship of each word yes to its appropriate box.