Proof of a 1681s-2[b] violation: Notley

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

Proof of a 1681s-2[b] violation: Notley

Postby Administrator » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:10 am

Proof of a 1681s-2[b] violation: Notley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notley v. Sterling Bank
Slip Copy, 2007 WL 188682
N.D.Tex.,2007.
January 24, 2007

Violations of the FCRA

Finally, the bank asserts that there is no evidence that it violated the FCRA. See Defendant's Motion at 13. Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA requires that those who furnish credit information to CRAs must, upon receiving notice from a CRA that a consumer has disputed information reported by the CRA, conduct an investigation verifying the accuracy of the account information reported and report the results of that investigation to the CRA that gave the notice. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). In addition, if the investigation reveals that the account information previously reported was inaccurate, the investigating party must report the corrected information to all CRAs to which the party had previously reported information regarding the account. Id.

*6 To avoid summary judgment on this point, the Notleys must present some evidence that the bank (1) received notice from a CRA that the plaintiffs disputed the bank's reporting of an account, and (2) that the bank either failed to conduct a proper investigation or failed to report the results of that investigation to the CRA that gave the notice. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). To meet this burden, the Notleys proffer the Affidavit of Stacy Notley and correspondence from Experian dated August 4, 2005. See Plaintiffs' Response at 15. Considering the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court finds that there exists evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the bank violated the FCRA.

The correspondence from Experian that the Notleys have presented shows that Experian-a CRA-notified the bank that the Notleys disputed an account reported by the bank and that the bank verified the accuracy of the account information. See Notley Exhibit 19. Moreover, the plaintiffs have presented evidence that the bank had information regarding the account in its possession that was inconsistent with the information the bank reported to the CRAs. See Prude Deposition at 67:11-68:19 (showing the bank knew the Notleys were making payments on the loan). Consequently, the plaintiffs have provided some evidence that the bank failed to properly investigate the account after receiving notice of the dispute from Experian. The defendant's motion for summary judgment on this ground is denied.
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 8 guests