Opinion ID: 330039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finance Charge Disclosure

Text: 43 The district court also found that the net finance charge in the add-on contract for the coupon plan 19 was not clearly, conspicuously and meaningfully disclosed within the requirements of Conn.Reg. §§ 36-395-5(a), 36-395-7(c)(8)(A), cf. 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.6(a), 226.8(c)(8)(i). This finding was in accord with Welmaker, supra, 365 F.Supp. at 535, where the same arrangement was found confusing. Grants argues that this is not so, and in any event that the issue was not a proper subject for summary judgment. In Welmaker, the finding of confusion was made after a trial. 44 We do not agree that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The district court had before it the forms in question, as we do, and there was nothing to have a hearing about. Why the arrangement is confusing is apparent from an examination of the form in appendix B. To the right of item 7, Amount financed, is a large space where the dollar figure to be financed is placed. This figure equals the balance still due, less the unearned finance charge, 20 from the original contract, plus new insurance charges, if any, plus the new amount borrowed. Below item 7 is item 8, which contains two parts: (a) Finance charge and (b) Less rebate $______ equals. 8(a) is the actual finance charge on the total in space 7. 8(b) is the unearned finance charge from the earlier contract which the present add-on loan contract extends. Thus, directly below the dollar figure of the total amount financed, space 7, appears a figure in space 8 which is less than the true finance charge. An example from plaintiffs' brief illustrates the point well. Plaintiff Robertson's contract, a portion of which is attached as appendix C, discloses an amount financed of $796.41 (item 7) and a finance charge of $177.56 (item 8(a)) less rebate $77.21 equals $100.35. Instead of disclosing the finance charge of $177.56 prominently underneath the Amount financed of $796.41, and in the column where all the other numerical disclosures are made, Grants discloses the finance charge off to the left of that column, in a smaller space. In the space where the format of the contract leads one to expect disclosure of the finance charge, Grants instead discloses the unlabeled net finance charge of $100.35. Thus, the natural result of Grants' arrangement of the disclosed figures is to view the $100.35 net finance charge as the genuine finance charge since it is disclosed far more prominently than the actual finance charge of $177.56. This makes the finance charge appear to be less than it actually is and is certainly misleading. 21 We agree with the district court that Grants' disclosure in this respect is not clear, conspicuous and meaningful. 45