Opinion ID: 1094068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged failure to provide a copy of written disclosures

Text: Parrish also claims that Blazer violated the requirement of the TILA that disclosures reflect[ing] the terms of the legal obligation between the parties are to be given to Parrish in a form that [Parrish] may keep. 12 C.F.R. § 226.17(a)(1), (c)(1). Specifically, Parrish contends that he did not receive a duplicate copy of his signed promissory note, i.e., the signed check Parrish cashed. We find this contention to be without merit. The reverse side of the check attached to the solicitation letter sent to Parrish provides lines for a signature and a date, a sentence cautioning the customer to thoroughly read the contract before you sign it, and the following information: AMOUNT FINANCED...............$ 1,029.62 FINANCE CHARGE.................$ 446.38 TOTAL OF PAYMENTS..............$ 1,476.00 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE............ 25.11 % Repayable in 36 monthly installments of $41.00 each, beginning 30 days from date of loan and then on the same day of each succeeding month until paid. In consideration of monies received as a loan, the undersigned jointly and severally promise(s) to pay to Creditor the Total of payments in monthly installments as shown above and further agree(s) to terms and conditions set forth in the accompanying Loan Agreement and Disclosure Statement (`Agreement'), the provisions of which Agreement are incorporated herein. NOTICE TO CONSUMER: BY SIGNING AND DEPOSITING (OR CASHING) THIS, YOU HAVE AGREED TO REPAY MONIES AS STATED. DO NOT SIGN THIS BEFORE YOU READ IT AND THE AGREEMENT, OR IF EITHER CONTAINS ANY BLANK SPACES. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of a copy both of this instrument (`Note') and the Agreement. (Capitalization original.) Directly above the check, however, this very language (minus the signature line and date line and the cautionary sentence) is repeated below the words BORROWER'S COPY OF NOTE. Therefore, Parrish's argument is actually reduced to the claim that the TILA requires Blazer to provide Parrish with a copy of the note with Parrish's signature. However, neither § 226.17(a)(1) nor § 226.17(c)(1) requires Blazer to provide Parrish with a duplicate copy of the signed note; rather, those provisions require Blazer only to provide Parrish with a copy of the terms of the legal obligation between them, which, as shown above, Blazer has done. [9] Based on the above, we hold that Parrish has not presented substantial evidence tending to show that Blazer violated the TILA. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact, and because Blazer is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was appropriate.