Page 1 of 1

Each Violation is Separate and Distinct

Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:32 pm
by David A. Szwak
The republication of false credit information is an important factor in the disposition of this case. Interpreting the FCRA in Young v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., the Fifth Circuit determined that "the republication of [false] credit information resulting in a new denial of credit constitutes a distinct harm and thus gives rise to a cause of action that is separate from that arising from the original publication." 294 F.3d 631, 636 (5th Cir.2002) (emphasis added). See also Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 861 F.2d 446, 449-50 (5th Cir.1988) (describing each issuance of a false credit report as a "discrete event" and a "distinct and separate injury"), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 (1989). Accordingly, the court must treat each publication of the false credit information furnished by MBNA as a distinct and separate injury, and Boley must establish each injury through sufficient factual allegations. For example, Boley must allege that, (1) within the FRCA limitations period, (2) a CRA republished the false credit information furnished by MBNA, and (3) that the republication resulted in a new denial of credit.

Boley v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22350752
Sep 25, 2003