Opinion ID: 722630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Truth in Lending Act

Text: 14
15 TILA's one-year statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e), bars plaintiffs' claims that Fidelity failed to make appropriate initial disclosures under 12 CFR § 226.18(f)(1) (1983) and 12 CFR § 545.33(f)(7) (1986). Hubbard filed suit more than eight years after she obtained her loan, and the Humphreys joined suit six years after they obtained theirs. Hubbard argues the statute of limitations should have been tolled until she discovered there were possible 'anomalies' or errors in her loan. However, nothing prevented Hubbard from comparing the loan contract, Fidelity's initial disclosures, and TILA's statutory and regulatory requirements. 6 See King v. State of Cal., 784 F.2d 910, 915 (9th Cir.1986). 16
17 TILA regulations required Fidelity to make disclosures that reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties. 12 CFR § 226.17(c)(1). Thus, Fidelity's yearly payment adjustment notices were required to reflect the loan agreement. The district court held that because Fidelity did not breach Hubbard's loan contract, it did not violate § 226.17. 824 F.Supp. at 918. However, as noted above, there is an unresolved issue of disputed fact as to whether Fidelity breached Hubbard's loan contract and miscalculated the interest rates and payment amounts. If the issue is resolved in Hubbard's favor, Fidelity's yearly payment adjustment notices did not reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties, and Fidelity violated TILA. 7 18 Ordinarily, Hubbard would have one year from each inaccurate disclosure to file suit. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). Because no evidence suggests Fidelity attempted to conceal its alleged breach of contract before it sent the letter, any TILA claims for inaccurate disclosures before August 22, 1990 are barred. 8 However, Fidelity's misleading August 22, 1991 letter tolled the statute of limitations, and Hubbard may sue for any inaccurate notice of payment adjustment after August 22, 1990. 19 Because the Humphreys presented no evidence that Fidelity breached their contract, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Fidelity on the Humphreys' claim under § 226.17.