Opinion ID: 382785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Merits of the Truth-in-Lending Claims

Text: 16 The truth-in-lending statement at issue contained two separate violations of the Act. First, an item was inadequately described. Specifically, designation of the collateral appraisal fee as C.A. did not clearly disclose the nature of the charge. 16 Second, the appraisal charge should have been included in the finance charge. 17 This is not a case in which a single error violates the Act in two different respects. Here, even if the collateral appraisal fee had been meaningfully described, the failure to include the charge in the amount financed or in the finance charge would have constituted a violation of the Act. Moreover, the two errors are relevant to distinct and different purposes underlying the Act: clarity of identification of items prevents customers from being misled concerning services for which they are paying; proper summation of the components of the finance charge permits the customer to compare lenders in order to choose the most advantageous debt contract. Because two distinct errors were made on the disclosure forms and the correction letters rectified only one of the errors, we REVERSE AND REMAND.