Skip to main content

Search

Truth in Lending: 7.15.4.1 Reasonable Policies and Procedures Required

The Credit CARD Act requires credit card issuers to establish reasonable policies and procedures to enable estate administrators to determine the amount of a decedent’s credit card debt, and pay off the balance in a timely manner.1589 Such policies and procedures must be in writing.1590

Examples of reasonable policies and procedures include:

Truth in Lending: 7.15.4.2 Account Balance Disclosure Required

Upon an estate administrator’s request, the issuer must disclose the amount of the balance on a decedent consumer’s account in a timely manner.1598 The issuer’s disclosure is considered “timely” if it is made within thirty days of receiving the administrator’s request.1599

Truth in Lending: 7.15.4.3 Exemption for Joint Accounts

The protections for estate administrators do not apply with the decedent’s account if it is a joint account, and an account holder (presumably still living) remains on the account.1608 Thus, for joint accounts, the issuer is free to impose fees and charges after notice of the decedent’s death. However, if only an authorized user remains on the account, then a card issuer may not impose fees and charges.1609

Truth in Lending: E.2.3 Sample Complaint for HOEPA Rescission and Damages

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act amendments changed the criteria for determining whether a loan is subject to HOEPA—modifying the APR trigger and points and fees trigger, and adding a third coverage trigger related to prepayment penalties. The Act also expanded the list of prohibited practices for HOEPA high-cost loans. These changes are discussed in Chapter 9, supra.

Truth in Lending: E.2.5 Sample Consumer Leasing Act Complaint

This sample complaint is adapted from a complaint drafted by Cary Flitter, a Pennsylvania attorney with a consumer law practice.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN S. SMITH, MICHAEL PARKER and MICHELLE PARKER, h/w on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Plaintiffs

v.

NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP.

Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Truth in Lending: E.3.1.1 Introduction

Appendix E.3.1.2 includes a set of motion papers seeking a federal court temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against non-judicial foreclosure of a consumer’s home, on the grounds of rescission. The papers were prepared by Hope Del Carlo when she was a staff attorney with the Oregon Law Center.

Truth in Lending: E.3.1.3 Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

[PLAINTIFF]

Plaintiff

v.

[Defendants 1–7]

Defendants

DECLARATION OF [PLAINTIFF] IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I, [Plaintiff], hereby declare as follows:

1. I am the plaintiff in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration.

Truth in Lending: E.3.1.4 Attorney Declaration in Support of Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

[PLAINTIFF]

Plaintiff

v.

[Defendants 1–7]

Defendants

DECLARATION OF [PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY] IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I, [Plaintiff’s Attorney], hereby declare as follows:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration.

Truth in Lending: E.3.2.1 Introduction

This set of documents seeks a temporary restraining order in federal court against a non-judicial foreclosure, on the ground that the consumer rescinded the transaction under TILA. These documents are adapted from a set contributed by Karen Merrill Tjapkes, a Michigan attorney. The TILA complaint that was filed in the case is included with this treatise’s digital version under “Pleadings and Discovery.” Practitioners should check local rules, which may require litigants to present additional forms or papers when seeking a TRO.

Truth in Lending: E.3.2.6 Temporary Restraining Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

[CONSUMER]

Plaintiff

v.

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY, WASHINGTON MUTUAL, and AIM FINANCIAL, INC.

Defendants

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

In accordance with the Opinion issued on this date:

Truth in Lending: F.2 Sample First Set of Interrogatories

This set of interrogatories is based on interrogatories prepared by consumer law practitioners in several different cases.2 It is designed to be directed to both the original creditor and an assignee. If only one is sued, the questions should be edited accordingly. The original creditor is identified as “Original Creditor” and the assignee as “Assignee,” but those terms should be replaced by their actual names.

Truth in Lending: F.4 Sample Fair Credit Billing Act Interrogatories

A version of these interrogatories in Microsoft Word format is available at this treatise’s digital version under “Pleadings and Discovery.”54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SAMUEL N. PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff

v.

FLEET CREDIT CARD SERVICES L.P.

Defendant

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES