Kettler v. CSC Credit Service, Inc.,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 21975919, D.Minn., Aug 12, 2003
Plaintiff Evelyn Kettler obtained a mortgage in 1998 that was eventually purchased by Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, FA ("Washington Mutual"). Kettler's husband, Richard Kettler did not sign the mortgage. In addition, Kettler and her husband held jointly a credit card through Household Bank ("Household"). In June 2000, Richard Kettler filed for bankruptcy and on both his original petition and on his reorganization plan, listed both accounts as his. On August 1, 2002, and again on October 15, 2002, Kettler sought to refinance her Washington Mutual mortgage, but was unable to do so because the credit report noted that her Washington Mutual account and her Household account were involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
On November 14, 2002, Kettler, acting through her attorney, disputed the notation that these accounts were involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Ultimately, Defendants investigated the two accounts and revised their credit reports. However, the revised credit reports did not satisfy Kettler. Kettler brought this action against Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e, 1681i, and for credit defamation. (Compl. Counts I--VII.) In addition, Kettler contends that Washington Mutual and Household violated § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA. (Compl. Counts IX, XIII.) She also alleges state-law claims of invasion of privacy, libel, and tortious interference with credit expectancy against Washington Mutual and Household. (Id. Counts X, XI, XII, XIV, XV.) Washington Mutual and Household have not moved to dismiss any of these claims. [FN2]
FN2. The parties have agreed to dismiss Kettler's § 1681e claims. The instant Motion pertains only to her § 1681i claims and her defamation claims against CSC, Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian. It does not affect the claims against Washington Union and Household.
Kettler claims that Defendants violated § 1681i by failing to respond appropriately to her letter disputing the bankruptcy entries on her credit report. Defendants' duty when performing a reinvestigation under § 1681i is different from the duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the initial report under § 1681e(b). See Olwell v. Med. Info. Bureau, Civ. No. 01-1481, 2003 WL 79035, at *5 (D.Minn. Jan. 7, 2003) (Tunheim, J.) (citing Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3rd Cir.1997)). Once an individual notifies the credit reporting agency of a dispute regarding the completeness or accuracy of information contained in the credit report, the credit reporting agency has a duty to investigate the disputed information and to correct or delete the inaccurate or incomplete information. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1), (5). In order to fulfill its obligations under § 1681i, a credit reporting agency may be required to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information, depending on whether the consumer has alerted the credit reporting agency to the possibility that the underlying source may be unreliable and on the cost of verifying the accuracy of the source versus the harm that inaccurately reported information may cause the consumer. Cushman, 115 F.3d at 225-26 (citing Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 287 (7th Cir.1994)).
In this case, Kettler's letter to Defendants put Defendants on notice that they were required under § 1681i to investigate the information she disputed. However, her letter merely stated that she had never filed for bankruptcy. (Compl.Ex. 14.) The letter did not explain that her husband had filed for bankruptcy and mistakenly listed the Washington Mutual and Household debts as his. Thus, Defendants were alerted only to the fact that Kettler claimed that she had not filed for bankruptcy.
As they were obligated to do, Defendants investigated Kettler's claim. On December 19, 2002, Defendants responded to Kettler's letter. They informed Kettler that the Household debt was still reporting as being involved in a bankruptcy, but that the Washington Mutual debt was no longer reporting as involved in a bankruptcy. (Id. Ex. 15.) The next day, Defendants sent another letter to Kettler and informed her that the Washington Mutual debt would be removed from her credit report altogether. (Id. Ex. 16.) There was no explanation for the decision to remove the debt entry.
Kettler claims that Defendants' failure to discover that the Household debt was hers and not her husband's violated Defendants' duty to investigate under § 1681i. Had Defendants conducted a proper investigation, Kettler argues, they would have discovered that only Kettler's husband had declared bankruptcy, and the credit report should have been corrected to reflect that fact. Instead, Defendants deleted the Washington Mutual account entry entirely and did not change the Household notation.
The information reported by Defendants was undisputedly information Defendants received from public bankruptcy records. Indeed, Kettler attached a copy of her husband's bankruptcy petition to her Complaint that shows these debts and lists Kettler as co-debtor on these debts. (Compl.Ex. 2.) Thus, the information Defendants reported after the investigation was accurate. Kettler contends that Defendants should have investigated further and determined that her husband was mistaken in listing these debts in his petition. In other words, Kettler asks the Court to require Defendants to inquire into the accuracy of the information underlying public records. The Court will not create such a burdensome requirement.
In this case, Kettler failed to explain the situation to Defendants in a way that would have allowed them to investigate her claim and reach the result she desired. Rather than merely insisting that she had never filed for bankruptcy, she should have explained that her husband filed for bankruptcy and mistakenly listed these debts as his. This information would have allowed Defendants to fully investigate Kettler's contentions and might have alerted Defendants to the necessity of inquiring as to the accuracy of the public bankruptcy records. Absent this information, Defendants cannot be expected to inquire into the accuracy of the information contained in Kettler's husband's bankruptcy petition. Defendants must be allowed to rely on information contained in public records absent more specific evidence that the information therein is inaccurate. See Wilson v. Rental Research Servs., Inc., Civ. No. 3-96-820, slip op. at 12 (D.Minn. Nov. 10, 1997) (Magnuson, J.) ("The Court does not believe the FCRA requires [defendant] to go beyond accurately reporting information from the court database and conducting more extensive research into information not in their possession"), aff'd by divided en banc court, 206 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.2000). As a matter of law, Kettler has failed to show that Defendants violated their duties under § 1681i.
Information that should and should not be reported where there is a bankruptcy.
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 7 guests