NO LEGAL DUTY TO CREDIT REPORT; CONTRACTUAL ONLY

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

NO LEGAL DUTY TO CREDIT REPORT; CONTRACTUAL ONLY

Postby Administrator » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:36 pm

NO LEGAL DUTY TO CREDIT REPORT; CONTRACTUAL ONLY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maberry v. Said
911 F.Supp. 1393
D.Kan.,1995.
December 29, 1995
“Absence of justification is the absence of any legal right on the part of the defendant to take the actions about which a plaintiff complains.” SSM Health Care, Inc. v. Deen, 890 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Mo.Ct.App.1994). More specifically, “[n]o liability arises for interfering with a contract or business *1406 expectancy if the action complained of was an act which the defendant had a definite legal right to do without any qualification.” Community Title Co. v. Roosevelt Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n, 796 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Mo.1990) (en banc). “[T]here is no impropriety of self-interested interference when a defendant has a legitimate economic interest in the contract or expectancy.” Id. A party is not justified, however, to interfere by employing improper means. Lay v. St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc., 869 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Mo.Ct.App.1993). Improper means are those that are independently wrongful, notwithstanding injury caused by the interference, e.g. misrepresentation of fact, threats, violence, defamation or any other wrongful act recognized by statute or common law. Id. The plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial to establish that the defendant interfered by improper means. SSM Health Care, Inc., 890 S.W.2d at 347. Citizens claims that its credit report resulted from the bank's pursuit of its legitimate economic interests. The only interest Citizens cites is the interest it shares in common with the members of its credit bureau service: the interest in ensuring that accurate information is made available concerning the credit status of potential customers. Moreover, Citizens alleges that it has a legal duty to report the credit status of potential customers to the other members of the service. As a result, Citizens maintains that Mr. Maberry cannot prove absence of justification. Citizens cites no evidence or legal authority to support its claim that it has a legal duty to report the status of Mr. Maberry's loan. The record nowhere suggests the existence of a contract between Citizens and the credit bureau. The court must therefore assume for purposes of this motion that no legal duty obligates Citizens to make credit reports. Whether or not Citizens has a legally enforceable duty to make credit reports, Mr. Maberry does not dispute that the bank has an economic interest in making them under the appropriate circumstances. Rather, Mr. Maberry states that the events surrounding the truck's loan should not have affected his credit status. As a result, argues Mr. Maberry, Citizens's issuance of a negative credit report was not in furtherance of Citizens's interest in providing accurate information to the credit bureau. Mr. Maberry contends that his credit status was not affected because (1) the note had been paid off before the credit report issued and (2) he had a right to withhold payment under the language of the note, the FTC holder rule and K.S.A. § 84-2-717."



Tokarz v. Frontier Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n,
33 Wash.App. 456, 656 P.2d 1089, Wash.App. Div. 3, December 23, 1982 (NO. 4793-III-8)
Savings and Loan Association was not under legal duty not to disclose financial information about contractor to customers when customers sought financing for construction of home under Fair Credit Reporting Act or Financial Privacy Act. Truth in Lending Act §§ 602-622 , as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681 1681t ; Right......Financial Condition, 92 A.L.R.2d 900 (1963) Post was a borrowing customer of Frontier. Frontier contends it therefore had a legal duty not to disclose financial information about Mr. Post to Tokarz by virtue of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 1681t , and the Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 22 The federal legislation is......"


Baker v. Capital One Bank,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 173668, D.Ariz., January 24, 2006 (NO. CV 04-1192-PHX-NVW)
"...practice that has the effect of reducing her credit score. (Response at 4.) Retailers submits that although it has no legal duty to report customers' credit limit, it does report its customers credit limit along with all other pertinent information in its reports to credit reporting agencies. (Retailers SOF at ¶ 8.) II. Legal Standard For Summary Judgment Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil......"


Ryan v. Trans Union Corp.,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL 185182, N.D.Ill., February 26, 2001 (NO. 99 C 216)
"The summary judgment motions In December 1999, Universal and Fleet moved for summary judgment. They contended that furnishers had no legal duties under FCRA until September 30, 1997, when an amendment to FCRA took effect requiring a furnisher of credit information to conduct an investigation and correct inaccuracies when it receives a notice from a credit reporting agency that a consumer is disputing credit information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1) They argued that all......"
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests