1681i[a][5]: Sepulvado v. CSC

David A. Szwak

1681i[a][5]: Sepulvado v. CSC

Postby David A. Szwak » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:02 am

Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Services, Inc.
158 F.3d 890
C.A.5 (Tex.),1998.

Prospective home purchasers whose mortgage application had been denied sued credit reporting agency which had prepared credit report, alleging that agency had violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, John W. Primono, United States Magistrate Judge, entered judgment in favor of purchasers. Agency appealed, and the Court of Appeals, DeMoss, Circuit Judge, held that report indicating that purchasers had deficiency arising from prior home foreclosure was not facially misleading, or inaccurate when prepared, and thus did not give rise to violation of FCRA.
Reversed and rendered.

At trial, the Sepulvados claimed both that the CSC entry was inaccurate, in violation of § 1681e(b), and that CSC failed to respond appropriately once they registered their disagreement with the content of the entry, in violation of certain provisions of § 1681i and § 1681g of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. See id. § 1681i(a)(5) (requiring the agency to promptly delete or modify information that is unverifiable or incomplete); id. § 1681i(a)(3) (requiring the agency to provide written notice concerning the disposition of the dispute within five days); id. § 1681i(a)(6) (requiring written notice of results of reinvestigation); id. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iv) (requiring the agency to provide notice that the consumer has the statutory right to supplement the disputed information with the consumer's own statement disputing the accuracy or completeness of the report); id. § 1681i(b) & (c) (permitting the consumer to supplement the entry with a statement setting forth the nature of the dispute); id. § 1681i(c) (requiring that the consumer's own statement be carried forward with the entry). The district court found that the Sepulvados failed to prove a violation of § 1681i or § 1681g, and that CSC was entitled to judgment as to those claims. On appeal, the Sepulvados have failed to brief, and therefore abandoned, any claim that the district court's disposition of their claims under § 1681i or § 1681g is error. See, e.g., MacArthur v. University of Texas Health Ctr., 45 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir.1995). We therefore express no opinion concerning whether CSC's conduct once the Sepulvados registered their disagreement with the content of the entry violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Return to “Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests