Opinion ID: 374734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blurred or obscured disclosure

Text: 40 Nothing can be more central to the entire scheme of TILA than the notion that disclosures made must be legible. 29 The required disclosures become meaningless if the consumer is unable to decipher them. In this case, the disclosure of the $168.41 30 finance charge is obscured behind lines and words printed on the form itself so as to be, in our opinion, unreadable. We therefore must respectfully disagree with the finding of the district court that the figure is clearly legible. 31 No doubt the legibility problem arose in this case because the copies of the form were not properly aligned before insertion into the typewriter. We note that this is the sort of clerical error for which the defense in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(c) may be applicable. 32 However, the creditor did not here attempt to demonstrate the existence and maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid and prevent errors of the sort which occurred. The creditor has the burden of proof as to these matters, and in the absence of an affirmative showing, the clerical error defense is not available. Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 537 F.2d 871, 877-79 (7th Cir. 1976); Turner v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 537 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1976). Since no showing has been made, a violation of the disclosure requirement has been established. 41