Opinion ID: 401053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of the Amount Financed

Text: 29 Regulation Z mandates disclosure of the amount financed, with the numerical amount identified by the precise term amount financed. 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(c)(7). Because of the importance of standardization of terms, different terms with the same meaning will not do; only the words amount financed will suffice. See, e.g., Chapman v. Rhode Island Trust National Bank, 444 F.Supp. 439, 441-44 (D.R.I.1978) (use of the term unpaid balance insufficient). 30 In the challenged October contract, Metalcraft used the term unpaid balance of amount financed rather than the simple term amount financed. Davis contends that the disclosure therefore is not in accord with TILA. We cannot agree. 31 In Lewis v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., Inc., 416 F.Supp. 514 (D.D.C.1976), the only case we have found that is arguably on point, the creditor used the term total amount financed rather than amount financed. The court held that this was sufficient, because there was no possibility that the prefacing of the term amount financed with the word total would in any way undercut or interfere with the disclosures required by the Act. 416 F.Supp. at 516. The court also noted that the addition of the word total was permissible pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(c), which states: 32 At the creditor's option, additional information or explanations may be supplied with any disclosure required by this part, but none shall be stated, utilized, or placed so as to mislead or confuse the customer or contradict, obscure, or detract attention from the information required by this part to be disclosed .... 33 (Emphasis added.) See also 15 U.S.C. § 1632(b). 34 Similarly, in the present case, we find that the prefacing of the mandatory term amount financed with the phrase unpaid balance of does not constitute a TILA violation. The precise term required by Regulation Z was included, and we do not find that the additional language might cause confusion or otherwise mislead the consumer. Accordingly, we reject the plaintiff's argument on this issue. 35