Opinion ID: 370296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosures

Text: 32 Having determined that a credit sale occurred and that Community was a seller, we now consider whether Community made the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a) and 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(c). 16 33 Community does not, in its brief on appeal, challenge the district court's holding that the credit sale disclosures were not made. They undoubtedly were not. Under the statute and regulations, the cash price (here, the insurance premium) and the actual cost of the credit (I. e., the finance charge) must be disclosed. All that was disclosed here was that a certain amount of money from the loan to the customer was being sent to American Family. See typical disclosure set out at page 503, Supra. The only finance charge shown is that for the entire amount of the loan, and the consumer is thus unable to determine exactly what he is paying for the credit to enable him to purchase the insurance policy. As the district court said: 34 By failing to make credit sale disclosures (regarding the insurance), defendants were able to extract painlessly an extra profit from loan customers, who in many cases simply signed or made their mark as instructed, and took home the proceeds, less deductions for various items including the cancer insurance premium. Truth-in-Lending was designed to require disclosure of the terms of credit sales, to insure that lenders would make borrowers aware of what they were agreeing to. 35 Record at 684.